Posted: Tue May 09, 2017 3:39 pmSince when do people fight over things that aren't valuable?
Urban areas are pretty much the entirety of an economy/population.
Urban areas are pretty much the entirety of an economy/population.
NationStates
Because sometimes even national leaders just want to hang out
https://forum.nationstates.net/
Infantry Discussion Thread 10: Shovel Edition [NO FWORDS]
Page 341 of 500
Posted: Tue May 09, 2017 3:39 pmPosted: Tue May 09, 2017 3:47 pmflank the cities bro
Posted: Tue May 09, 2017 3:47 pmNeuPolska wrote:Spirit of Hope wrote:Biking towards the battle isn't the worst option, and is indeed faster and less energy intensive than walking or hiking. However if you have access to vehicles they are still infinity preferable.
Yes, I agree.
I'd only use bikes with small detachments of light infantry going in to support some army out in the field that isn't in the middle of an intense firefight or under severe threat from snipers. So limited use.
Very limited use. About the only time it would make sense is when the alternative is to march the entire way, which just circles around to the question of where your transport vehicles are.
Posted: Tue May 09, 2017 3:57 pmNeuPolska wrote:Allanea wrote:
Bicycles are possibly the third-worst idea for tactical movement in combat. (The worst is camels, the second is horses, if you wondered).
Depending on location, they'd be a pretty decent method of travel for infantry, though? No need for fuel, no need to feed them (except for feeding the infantry using them, but it's less tiring and more efficient to bike somewhere than it is to walk there, unless you're climbing mountains I guess).
But we're talking about tactical movement in battle, aren't we? In actual battle a bicycle is probably actually inferior to walking or running because it's easier to quickly get behind cover or get over an obstacle, and you're probably less vulnerable to getting shot.
And if you're not in actual battle, you should probably stay aboard the lightly armored trucks Maverica mentioned.
Posted: Tue May 09, 2017 3:59 pmPosted: Tue May 09, 2017 4:06 pmExcuse me I have won all 0 wars I have ever fought, making my win rate 100%
Posted: Tue May 09, 2017 7:26 pmFordorsia wrote:Excuse me I have won all 0 wars I have ever fought, making my win rate 100%
0/0=0% win rate. Ford confirmed as worse than France. At least they won their revolution.
Posted: Tue May 09, 2017 7:38 pmNeuPolska wrote:Allanea wrote:
Bicycles are possibly the third-worst idea for tactical movement in combat. (The worst is camels, the second is horses, if you wondered).
Depending on location, they'd be a pretty decent method of travel for infantry, though? No need for fuel, no need to feed them (except for feeding the infantry using them, but it's less tiring and more efficient to bike somewhere than it is to walk there, unless you're climbing mountains I guess).
Bikes were cool when motorized transport was not as ubiquitous as it is today. But now it's everywhere and easy to acquire in large quantities, and coupled with limited helicopter support, the value proposition gets smaller. The opportunities to use them would be so few as to not make it worth carrying bicycles in the first place.
Posted: Tue May 09, 2017 8:07 pmIf you really want infantry on bikes today, I guess the best you could do is give them lightweight offroad bikes like the Taurus 2x2. They're cheap as hell so you could buy enough to have actual modern dragoons.
I wish I had lore so I could do that
Lies and slander
I wish I had lore so I could do that
Lies and slander
Posted: Tue May 09, 2017 9:15 pmAllanea wrote:NeuPolska wrote:Depending on location, they'd be a pretty decent method of travel for infantry, though? No need for fuel, no need to feed them (except for feeding the infantry using them, but it's less tiring and more efficient to bike somewhere than it is to walk there, unless you're climbing mountains I guess).
But we're talking about tactical movement in battle, aren't we? In actual battle a bicycle is probably actually inferior to walking or running because it's easier to quickly get behind cover or get over an obstacle, and you're probably less vulnerable to getting shot.
And if you're not in actual battle, you should probably stay aboard the lightly armored trucks Maverica mentioned.
Okay, I got a little riled up over the comparison between bicycles and horses due to differences in logistics.
Yes, I realize that vehicles are infinitely better for transporting troops than bicycles. I also think that bicycles could fill some niche transportation role though, mainly in someplace like Austria, where troops have had to walk to get to wherever they're needed because of horrendous budget cuts, and it'd be worthwhile to invest in a fleet of bicycles if one can't be bothered to properly maintain vehicles and supply them with fuel.
Posted: Tue May 09, 2017 9:17 pmFordorsia wrote:If you really want infantry on bikes today, I guess the best you could do is give them lightweight offroad bikes like the Taurus 2x2. They're cheap as hell so you could buy enough to have actual modern dragoons.
I wish I had lore so I could do that
Welp I know what I'm getting for my paramilitary and special forces
Posted: Tue May 09, 2017 9:21 pmI'd take a bicycle if the military force was in peacetime doing standard patrols in the city or along a long border in rough country. Just like how skis are still in use in snowy areas despite the existence of sleds and snowmobiles.
Personally I'm thinking of motorcycles, tricycles, and auto rickshaws as a motorized cavalry/dragoons and regular car stuff for everyone else. Oh and horses in light border patrol and city duties.
Personally I'm thinking of motorcycles, tricycles, and auto rickshaws as a motorized cavalry/dragoons and regular car stuff for everyone else. Oh and horses in light border patrol and city duties.
Posted: Tue May 09, 2017 9:34 pmTrying to mass-deploy any kind of unprotected vehicle as motorized infantry/dragoons into combat will end up in thousands of men.
Mechanized infantry in APCs/IFVs are the dragoons and hussars of today.
Mechanized infantry in APCs/IFVs are the dragoons and hussars of today.
Posted: Tue May 09, 2017 9:46 pmFree-Don wrote:I'd take a bicycle if the military force was in peacetime doing standard patrols in the city or along a long border in rough country. Just like how skis are still in use in snowy areas despite the existence of sleds and snowmobiles.
Skis are used for the same reason why infantry still walk and conduct assaults on foot; they're meant for use in terrain unsuitable for a vehicle.
But in terrain where a vehicle can be used it is generally preferred to the extent possible thanks to the significant benefits in mobility, payload, protection, and reduction in fatigue for passengers. The same can be said of bicycles, except that in most cases wherever you can take a bike, you can take a motorized vehicle of some sort.
Personally I'm thinking of motorcycles, tricycles, and auto rickshaws as a motorized cavalry/dragoons and regular car stuff for everyone else. Oh and horses in light border patrol and city duties.
Tricycles?
There is no reason for the "motorized cavalry" or "dragoons" not need the same protection as everyone else in their fancy enclosed "car stuff."
Posted: Tue May 09, 2017 11:54 pmAllanea wrote:Trying to mass-deploy any kind of unprotected vehicle as motorized infantry/dragoons into combat will end up in thousands of men.
Mechanized infantry in APCs/IFVs are the dragoons and hussars of today.
Superlights used by Third World countries like Chad and Russia are superior to mechanized troops in open steppe and desert, though.
Posted: Wed May 10, 2017 12:25 amGallia- wrote:Since when do people fight over things that aren't valuable?
Urban areas are pretty much the entirety of an economy/population.
Mmmmmmm, that sweet, sweet infrastructure bonus. Keep it intact AND remove potentially hostile collateral meatbags from the AO? Splendid.
Posted: Wed May 10, 2017 12:28 amFordorsia wrote:flank the cities bro
why not do what the allies did and simply bomb them?
Bomber harris and Curtis lemay had the right idea.
Posted: Wed May 10, 2017 12:39 amPosted: Wed May 10, 2017 12:42 am
Posted: Wed May 10, 2017 2:01 amGallan Systems wrote:Allanea wrote:Trying to mass-deploy any kind of unprotected vehicle as motorized infantry/dragoons into combat will end up in thousands of men.
Mechanized infantry in APCs/IFVs are the dragoons and hussars of today.
Superlights used by Third World countries like Chad and Russia are superior to mechanized troops in open steppe and desert, though.
Please tell me more about this. In what sense are they superior?
Posted: Wed May 10, 2017 6:55 amIf he's referring to lightweight bikes then I assume it's because they're quick, they'll never get stuck and don't need tracks
Posted: Wed May 10, 2017 7:30 amhttps://russiandefpolicy.blog/2016/10/2 ... t-brigade/
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRec ... =ADA370233
I don't know.
I think it has something to do with being able to move faster than the tracked vehicles, operationally speaking. Given they would both have large lines of sight, light motorized troops' advantage in speed means that they have a very slightly greater freedom of movement when combined with a decent level of intelligence that tells them where heavy tracked units are. They can use roads when possible and avoid contact with the mechanized troops.
The High Technology Light Division did this with Chenowth FAVs and HMMWVs in the 1980s against OPFOR regiments in the deserts of the Mojave and apparently the Russian "superlight" brigades were able to beat mechanized BMP/BTR mounted troops in desert/steppe terrain. Of course there is also the Toyota War, where the Chadians had superior battlefield intelligence to the Libyans and were able to outmaneuver them and attacked only when they could reasonably win. In close terrain like Europe and cities, armour protection and heavy firepower still wins the day, obviously.
As long as the light/superlight unit can avoid being pinned down, it can whittle an equivalent sized mechanized unit to destruction in open terrain. Or something like that.
There is probably some serious "but only if" type catchs, besides the artillery vulnerability of SUVs and light trucks, that is not being explained. Perhaps it only works if the motorized unit has better sensors and a better picture of the disposition of its enemies, which is easier in relatively flat and wide open terrain than close terrain. It also assumes a minimum level of technological advance over the opponent. A lot of the statements by 9th ID brigade COLs relates to stand-off distance and intelligence gathering being prime methods of survival for their motorized troops during OCTOFOIL FOCUS when fighting motor rifle regiments and tank regiments. Or perhaps it only works if you are delusional and willing to clap your hands if you believe in motorized spirit...
1st Brigade, 9th ID Commanding Officer wrote:Motorized is not merely a unit or a specific type of equipment—it is people with a vision, a belief, a purpose—and with the uncanny ability to transform ideas into reality. They did—it is!
It's probably valuable to note that the motorized phases of OCTOFOIL FOCUS were done with an emphasis on Southwest Asia and reinforcing the Rapid Deployment Force in the event of a war with generic Arabs, so it's not particularly surprising that they would be spamming dank memes about the high speed low dragness of the motorized brigade if all they ever did was fight in a desert where they could see to the ends of the Earth.
Or they're lying/downplaying the deficiencies accidentally.
I remember when Germany surrendered after weeks of sustained aerial bombardment alone. And Britain, too.
Oh wait. Even Japan didn't surrender until it lost control of the seas.
Posted: Wed May 10, 2017 7:42 amBasically yeah
The MRDs advantage is it's tactical mobility, autonomous range and speed.
It's really hard to beat an enemy when the enemy keeps changing position and only engaging your weakest points or rapidly moving away, only to re-engage you somewhere else from a flank thanks to superior tactical mobility
Theve never been to war though, at least not against a peer and modern war of mechanization. The terrain of Russia, shockingly, shapes the doctrines of the primary defensive Russian army.
Also bike infantry are fucking cancer and stupid.
The MRDs advantage is it's tactical mobility, autonomous range and speed.
It's really hard to beat an enemy when the enemy keeps changing position and only engaging your weakest points or rapidly moving away, only to re-engage you somewhere else from a flank thanks to superior tactical mobility
Theve never been to war though, at least not against a peer and modern war of mechanization. The terrain of Russia, shockingly, shapes the doctrines of the primary defensive Russian army.
Also bike infantry are fucking cancer and stupid.
Posted: Wed May 10, 2017 7:47 amPosted: Wed May 10, 2017 7:49 amPuzikas wrote:Basically yeah
The MRDs advantage is it's tactical mobility, autonomous range and speed.
It's really hard to beat an enemy when the enemy keeps changing position and only engaging your weakest points or rapidly moving away, only to re-engage you somewhere else from a flank thanks to superior tactical mobility
Theve never been to war though, at least not against a peer and modern war of mechanization. The terrain of Russia, shockingly, shapes the doctrines of the primary defensive Russian army.
Also bike infantry are fucking cancer and stupid.
Motorized units have inferior tactical mobility though.
It is basically all about road march speeds I guess.