Infantry Discussion Thread part 11: Gallas Razor edition.

[Puzikas]

https://i.imgur.com/UE8Kize.jpg

This is just my theme now I guess

[Gallia-]

It's somewhere between a UH-60 and CH-53, and closer to the UH-60 in most respects. Nobody's going to carry 45 troops around in a Merlin (standing room only!). 16-24 is more likely.

So like a slightly weedier H-3?

https://i.imgur.com/UE8Kize.jpg

This is just my theme now I guess

embrace boxscale

[Pritannika and Asgallia]

During the later Victorian era (let's say 1870-1902), how were infantry organized in the British Army? Specifically, how did companies, battalions, and regiments interact with one another, which were subordinate to which, and what kinds of officers commanded each of these units?

[Turuma]

I hope this is the appropriate thread for such a question,

The bulk of my army is comprised of truck borne motorized infantry organized along the lines outlined in FM-100-63. With that in mind, are there any good books or other resources outlining tactics used by such forces? I'm in the process of writing up something detailing an infantry training and equipment modernization program my army undertook in the mid 2000s and I imagine allot of what that program would entail is dictated by the sort of tactics those forces would be using

dump

[Triplebaconation]

During the later Victorian era (let's say 1870-1902), how were infantry organized in the British Army? Specifically, how did companies, battalions, and regiments interact with one another, which were subordinate to which, and what kinds of officers commanded each of these units?

After the 1881 reorganization:

Infantry Division, Lieutenant General
> Divisional Staff
> 2-3 Infantry Brigades - Brigadier General, Major-General
   > Brigade Staff
   > 4 Infantry Battalions - Lieutenant Colonel
      > 8 Companies, Major, ~100-120 men
         > 2 Half Companies, Lieutenant 
            > 2 Sections, Corporal
   > Army Service Corps Company
   > Royal Army Medical Corps Company
   > Field Hospital
> Divisional Artillery (18 guns in 3 batteries plus ammunition column)
> Cavalry Squadron
> Royal Engineers Company
> Army Service Corps Company
> Field Hospital

Total strength of an infantry division was around 11,000 men, 1800 horses, 300 or so wagons and 8 machine guns. Regiments were administrative units and contributed battalions to brigades, which were the field units.

[Pritannika and Asgallia]

After the 1881 reorganization:

Infantry Division, Lieutenant General
> Divisional Staff
> 2-3 Infantry Brigades - Brigadier General, Major-General
   > Brigade Staff
   > 4 Infantry Battalions - Lieutenant Colonel
      > 8 Companies, Major, ~100-120 men
         > 2 Half Companies, Lieutenant 
            > 2 Sections, Corporal
   > Army Service Corps Company
   > Royal Army Medical Corps Company
   > Field Hospital
> Divisional Artillery (18 guns in 6 batteries plus ammunition column)
> Cavalry Squadron
> Royal Engineers Company
> Army Service Corps Company
> Field Hospital

Total strength of an infantry division was around 11,000 men, 1800 horses, 300 or so wagons and 8 machine guns. Regiments were administrative units and contributed battalions to brigades, which were the field units.

Thank you! How far apart could battalions of a regiment reasonably be? Could you have a battalion in Canada and a battalion in South Africa from the same regiment, making regiments purely ceremonial at that time? Or did the battalions of a regiment at least need to (normally) be within some proximity of one another?

[Triplebaconation]

The regiment of the time was a combination of regular and militia battalions, recruited from Regimental Districts. The exact number varied. Typically some of a regiment's battalions would be deployed and some would stay home as reserves and to train new recruits. The active regiments could be scattered all over.

[Gallia-]

[Puzikas]

Do a waifu body pillow next

[Manokan Republic]

Maybe 1% of your infantry will be reliably hitting targets at 600 meters. A man sized target at that range is about the same size as your thumb when your arm is fully extended. It's so small that the front sight post on most weapons will obscure it. Furthermore, identification of targets will be almost impossible at that range without magnified optics, which come with a bit of reduced usability in close quarters environments. Most combat will be happening at 300 meters or less. So I would worry less about hitting a 600 meter target with a rifle and more about ensuring that the infantry are capable of reliably engaging targets at typical ranges of about 300 to 400 meters.

I agree. I said I prefer. I am realistic to combat condations. I know its a long range. I just prefer to give troops the most powerful rounds. But 6.5 or 6.8 work better for combat.

It is easier to hit targets out to 300-400 meters if your gun is good out to 600 meters. The time to target is shorter with a more aerodynamic round, and the drop is reduced, so it has a less curved trajectory and this makes hitting the target easier. Against a moving target, the difference between a 4 second delay and 2 second delay is actually quite substantial, and increases exponentially at further and further ranges. There's also the advantages they offer at close range, beyond that of the 5.56mm, such as better barrier penetration and generally higher power.

[Manokan Republic]

Point to where what I said is even wrong.

---

This whole thing can be resolved if you can provide a definition of perforated source, say from Marriem's webster or a dictionary source that goes along with your hyper specific definition. If you can find it, I'd love to see it.

"Show me the thing from the dictionary, I want to see it."

From the dictionary:
Perforate, from the latin root perforat-, meaning "to punch through" or "punched through". From Webster: to make a hole through. Note the use of through vice in.
Metal foam is entirely different.

"Here is the thing from the dictionary you wanted to see."

Well if going by that definition then, yes .... At this point it's an arbitrary distinction that has no real practical value, of course

"This is arbitrary and has no value."

The definition of the word perforated is not the same as the definition of the word perforated armor, nor is it the same as when used in military contexts. Words have many different meanings, which is why you can bat a bat, with a bat, when up to bat, or buffalo a buffalo, or wear a top on top of a top of the top while being on top. Exact definitions depend very carefully on word usage, and it is not the simple case that words only mean one thing. There are two things to bear in mind, that 1. This definition is not the same as presented by the other people who claim perforated armor must be spaced armor and also have holes designed to cause the bullet to tumble and 2. this is not an official, military definition. The term clip doesn't mean a hairpin, and the term magazine doesn't mean that thing you read when waiting at the doctor's office sitting uncomfortably for what seems far longer than than the 30 minutes they said.

The truth is, there doesn't seem to be an exact definition of what the term perforated armor means anywhere, let alone in any technical manual. Therefore to demand a very specific and unique definition that someone made up off of the top of their head is frankly absurd. There is no clear definition for the term, literally anywhere. And the only definitions that come up on google are by companies, and even then much more vague than what was previously presented. The term perforated armor comes from the industry term that referred to the manufacturing process involving producing metal with holes in it, and it's not as if different people make the armor for vehicles.

[Manokan Republic]

I hope this is the appropriate thread for such a question,

The bulk of my army is comprised of truck borne motorized infantry organized along the lines outlined in FM-100-63. With that in mind, are there any good books or other resources outlining tactics used by such forces? I'm in the process of writing up something detailing an infantry training and equipment modernization program my army undertook in the mid 2000s and I imagine allot of what that program would entail is dictated by the sort of tactics those forces would be using

Deployment of your forces along side the lines of the Chadians in the Toyota Wars, the SAS in WWII, or basically the way technicals and other light armored vehicles are used is a good idea. This basically relies extensively on the mobility of the vehicles for defense, using fast hit and run tactics to attack the enemy before they can reasonably kill or destroy you. You will require a lot of big guns to be successful against armor, but it is possible. And by guns I'm being metaphorical as in, rocket launchers in addition to actual guns and whatnot.

The Chadians for example only suffered about 1000 losses, yet inflicted 7500 on the Libyans who had a far larger number of armored vehicles. The Rhodesians in the Bush wars were known for taking out lots of heavy tanks with their lighter 90mm wheeled vehicles, such as the Panhard AML, with 1,120 losses vs. about 10,000 for their enemies. U.S. Tank destroyer doctrine basically revolved around using very light tanks, such as the Hellcat Tank destroyer, to out maneuver the enemy tanks and flank them, and the Hellcat had one of the higher kill ratios of the war, perhaps the highest of any tank of the war, or, 2.3 to 1. While it may seem paradoxical, lighter units can have an advantage over heavier one's, presuming you have the right weapons and the enemy vehicles are slow due to their weight. The IFV concept is also particularly popular for taking on tanks, and the U.S. Bradley destroyed more tanks than tanks did, in the persian gulf war, despite having a roughly similiar number of vehicles. It basically relies on mobility as both a component of defense and offense, maneuvering out of the way of enemy's bullets and weapons, and maneuvering close enough to fire before quickly retreating or simply staying on the move. Stealth is also another factor.

It helps tremendously to at least have a little bit of armor. Shrapnel and fragmentation is easily protected against with even thin armor, like as thin as a combat helmet, but will otherwise wipe out a bunch of unarmored vehicles with a few well placed hits, making artillery, mortars, grenades etc. devastating to such vehicles. Even relatively small amounts of armor can do wonders.

[The united American-Isreali empire]

I suspect fully well if it had been better on the engines it would of been my better. I grew up liking the idea. It is very verastile and a jack of all trades design.

It already has more powerful engines than a Black Hawk or an Apache (both of which are newer aircraft, and the Black Hawk can carry more). But because it's so big and heavy, it still has worse performance than either of them.

The failure of the concept should be obvious given the fact that:

1. No one but the USSR bothered to introduce such an aircraft.
2. Even the Russians are retiring their Mi-24s and replacing them with regular transports and attack helicopters.

lighter armour might be worth it,

[Barfleur]

The regiment of the time was a combination of regular and militia battalions, recruited from Regimental Districts. The exact number varied. Typically some of a regiment's battalions would be deployed and some would stay home as reserves and to train new recruits. The active regiments could be scattered all over.

When did the regiment go from the basic unit of a nation's army to a purely ceremonial unit? (for example, the 1st Battalion, 3rd Infantry Regiment of the US Army is based in Washington DC, while the 2nd Battalion is part of the 2nd ID in Washington state) It is also like that in the British Army, and many other armies from cursory examinations I have done.

[Gallia-]

Do a waifu body pillow next

"lewd the sugar grill" says the paramedics

n o .
o
.

[Puzikas]

These hands are rated "E" for everyone you hyperintelligent mushroom.
Meet me somewhere and we can train our mammary glands together.

The definition of the word perforated is not the same as the definition of the word perforated armor

That's two words tho

Unsurprisingly the definition of perforated remains the same when applied to armor and metals generally as it does when applied to cheese. I'd love to hear a definition you're using for the word, less this quote become relative again

Never in all my years have I seen someone actually quote the dictionary and still get the definition wrong.

[Gallia-]

i would meet u on diskord but i cant find it in my discord list ;_;

i think someone "b7" me as a "bant"

[Puzikas]

F in the chat

[Gallia-]

The regiment of the time was a combination of regular and militia battalions, recruited from Regimental Districts. The exact number varied. Typically some of a regiment's battalions would be deployed and some would stay home as reserves and to train new recruits. The active regiments could be scattered all over.

When did the regiment go from the basic unit of a nation's army to a purely ceremonial unit? (for example, the 1st Battalion, 3rd Infantry Regiment of the US Army is based in Washington DC, while the 2nd Battalion is part of the 2nd ID in Washington state) It is also like that in the British Army, and many other armies from cursory examinations I have done.

An administrative unit isn't "ceremonial". It performs the all important function of training new manpower and retaining skills when the combat troops sent overseas are killed, or otherwise occupied in some form or another. Being able to produce new fighting men is just as important as being able to supply the existing fighting men. re: 3rd IR, Tomb Guards and other "ceremonial" troops are just as much combat infantry as the rest of the 3rd IR, and are usually combat veterans anyway, and the 3rd IR has deployed troops to Iraq and Afghanistan. Before that its last major combat experience was probably Vietnam.

[Crookfur]

The regiment of the time was a combination of regular and militia battalions, recruited from Regimental Districts. The exact number varied. Typically some of a regiment's battalions would be deployed and some would stay home as reserves and to train new recruits. The active regiments could be scattered all over.

When did the regiment go from the basic unit of a nation's army to a purely ceremonial unit? (for example, the 1st Battalion, 3rd Infantry Regiment of the US Army is based in Washington DC, while the 2nd Battalion is part of the 2nd ID in Washington state) It is also like that in the British Army, and many other armies from cursory examinations I have done.

The seperation between the regiment being the administrative and support/recruiting element and the battalion(s) being the operational element goes back pretty much to the beginnings of the regimental system in the 17th century. It only really becomes hugely noticeable with the establishment of over seas colonys and empire as we move into the 18th century and you see stuff like a battalion being based at home whilst one is on service in the east indies or the Americas.

[Gallia-]

60 mL double

unfortunately...



will draw at least 6

but for now it is onto the mixed fruit/nut bag and beverage bags

then i will return to the dreaded barley wheat cracker

[The Manticoran Empire]

The regiment of the time was a combination of regular and militia battalions, recruited from Regimental Districts. The exact number varied. Typically some of a regiment's battalions would be deployed and some would stay home as reserves and to train new recruits. The active regiments could be scattered all over.

When did the regiment go from the basic unit of a nation's army to a purely ceremonial unit? (for example, the 1st Battalion, 3rd Infantry Regiment of the US Army is based in Washington DC, while the 2nd Battalion is part of the 2nd ID in Washington state) It is also like that in the British Army, and many other armies from cursory examinations I have done.

In the case of the United States Army, it primarily is because the "Regiment" technically doesn't exist outside of the Rangers and the Cavalry and even then "Armored Cavalry Regiment" is just an Armored or Stryker Brigade with a different name. The US decided during the Cold War that it didn't want Regiments but Brigades as their typical maneuver units with battalions assigned to Brigades. Now this pissed off the guys who had been in those regiments so you have the United States Army Regimental System (was United States Army Combat Arms Regimental System until about 1981). So 3rd Infantry Regiment only exists as an administrative and ceremonial unit. Pretty much every other regiment in the United States Army only exists to provide the lineage of those battalions and keep the battle honors that those regiments won alive.

[Manokan Republic]

These hands are rated "E" for everyone you hyperintelligent mushroom.
Meet me somewhere and we can train our mammary glands together.

The definition of the word perforated is not the same as the definition of the word perforated armor

That's two words tho

Unsurprisingly the definition of perforated remains the same when applied to armor and metals generally as it does when applied to cheese. I'd love to hear a definition you're using for the word, less this quote become relative again

Never in all my years have I seen someone actually quote the dictionary and still get the definition wrong.

The term National Socialism applies to the nazis for example, despite National and Socialism not necessarily meaning something that specific. Or the Term constitutional Monarchy applying to a sort of modern democratic monarchy, despite neither a constitutional society nor Monarchy needing either of these things. What a phrase specifically means depends more than on just what the two words mean. This applies to all kinds of terms and phrases that have been used for centuries. An ATM, or Automated Teller Machine, refers to something very specific, despite the vagueness of the words meaning many, many things can be automated teller machines.

As well, there are different definitions for the same word, so perforated and armor both can mean different things. Armor can be metaphorical even, like, I'm armored against insults or whatever. Understanding the complexity of words and language is important in a conversation in general but, it's important to bear some basic concepts in mind. It's annoying to talk about such pedantic topics but such is nation-states apparently. Perforated armor just means armor with some kind of hole or spacing between parts of the armor. Tank armor with perpendicular rods is referred to as perforated armor for example. "These metal modules function on the principle of perforated armour (typically employing perpendicular rods), with many expansion spaces reducing the weight by up to one third while keeping the protective qualities fairly constant."- Words have flexible meanings, and specific phrases often refer to different things. Different dictionaries, be it Oxford or Merriam Webster's or whatever, often times use completely different definitions. The reality is that definitions are just a general description of a word, and not an exactly prescriptive meaning for it. It's meant to describe how words are commonly used and not exactly insist that they be used that way as they do not make, just describe the definition of a word. Once you have the appropriate mindset, dealing with the definitions of words is easy.


Just for example, the Oxford dictionary definition for perforated is: "A hole made by boring or piercing; an aperture passing through or into something." Where as the Merriam Webster definition is "having a hole or perforations". Both also have additional definitions relating to the medical field. By the first one, perforated armor could only mean armor that is made from boring or piercing, while the second definition of perforated means simply having holes or perforations and doesn't reference how or why. This only matters if one insists on one very specific definition of a word. Furthermore words evolve and take on new meanings, which is why the term General refers to both an officer, a type of store, and common things. These words are derived from other words that evolve to take on new meaning. The term "perforated armor" may not even refer to armor with holes in it at all. But even if we take the definition to be accurate, this means the incredibly specific definition of perforated armor meaning armor must be spaced and designed to cause bullets to tumble is not true, it would still apply to any armor with holes in it. The simple reality is, definitions are not prescriptive, and insisting on a single definition of a word is well, technically and factually wrong. In specific use, a definition of a word may be entirely different, such as military context, as well. Even when a word has a very specific meaning, it's usually only in certain contexts. All of this to say, to insist on a very specific definition in a Nation States forum as if one is a God of Words is dumb.

[Spirit of Hope]

I agree. I said I prefer. I am realistic to combat condations. I know its a long range. I just prefer to give troops the most powerful rounds. But 6.5 or 6.8 work better for combat.

It is easier to hit targets out to 300-400 meters if your gun is good out to 600 meters.

A gun that is accurate enough for combat to 400 meters is going be be accurate enough to reach out to 600 meters. You can easily get commercial 5.56 ammo to hit a man sized target at 600 meters. Just about any infantry rifle is going to be far more accurate than the skill of the soldier that is going to be using it.

The time to target is shorter with a more aerodynamic round, and the drop is reduced, so it has a less curved trajectory and this makes hitting the target easier. Against a moving target, the difference between a 4 second delay and 2 second delay is actually quite substantial, and increases exponentially at further and further ranges.

At 400 meters a 4 second delay to hit means your round is moving on average at 100 meters a second, which is slower than you would expect with a black powder rifle, let alone a modern intermediate cartridge. 5.56 has a muzzle velocity from a 20 inch barrel in excess of 900 meters per second, meaning your round would impact at 400 meters in about half a second.

I would also note that 6.5mm Grendel and 6.8mm Remington have lower muzzle velocities than 5.56.

There's also the advantages they offer at close range, beyond that of the 5.56mm, such as better barrier penetration and generally higher power.

Increased velocity, which produces a flatter trajectory, doesn't equal better barrier penetration. Higher power doesn't really mean much, since anyone hit by 5.56 is going to need medical attention and be out of the fight.

The big advantage of 5.56 remains at any range, it's lighter which means you can carry more of it.

I hope this is the appropriate thread for such a question,

The bulk of my army is comprised of truck borne motorized infantry organized along the lines outlined in FM-100-63. With that in mind, are there any good books or other resources outlining tactics used by such forces? I'm in the process of writing up something detailing an infantry training and equipment modernization program my army undertook in the mid 2000s and I imagine allot of what that program would entail is dictated by the sort of tactics those forces would be using

Deployment of your forces along side the lines of the Chadians in the Toyota Wars, the SAS in WWII, or basically the way technicals and other light armored vehicles are used is a good idea. This basically relies extensively on the mobility of the vehicles for defense, using fast hit and run tactics to attack the enemy before they can reasonably kill or destroy you. You will require a lot of big guns to be successful against armor, but it is possible. And by guns I'm being metaphorical as in, rocket launchers in addition to actual guns and whatnot.

The Chadians for example only suffered about 1000 losses, yet inflicted 7500 on the Libyans who had a far larger number of armored vehicles. The Rhodesians in the Bush wars were known for taking out lots of heavy tanks with their lighter 90mm wheeled vehicles, such as the Panhard AML, with 1,120 losses vs. about 10,000 for their enemies. U.S. Tank destroyer doctrine basically revolved around using very light tanks, such as the Hellcat Tank destroyer, to out maneuver the enemy tanks and flank them, and the Hellcat had one of the higher kill ratios of the war, perhaps the highest of any tank of the war, or, 2.3 to 1. While it may seem paradoxical, lighter units can have an advantage over heavier one's, presuming you have the right weapons and the enemy vehicles are slow due to their weight. The IFV concept is also particularly popular for taking on tanks, and the U.S. Bradley destroyed more tanks than tanks did, in the persian gulf war, despite having a roughly similiar number of vehicles. It basically relies on mobility as both a component of defense and offense, maneuvering out of the way of enemy's bullets and weapons, and maneuvering close enough to fire before quickly retreating or simply staying on the move. Stealth is also another factor.

It helps tremendously to at least have a little bit of armor. Shrapnel and fragmentation is easily protected against with even thin armor, like as thin as a combat helmet, but will otherwise wipe out a bunch of unarmored vehicles with a few well placed hits, making artillery, mortars, grenades etc. devastating to such vehicles. Even relatively small amounts of armor can do wonders.

Hit and run only works if you have the ability to run, which generally isn't something you can do while trying to hold territory.

As has been discussed to death here the Chadians didn't always conduct hit and run operations, they were up against a truly incompetent opponent and they were receiving outside intelligence and assistance. The SAS was an elite light infantry force that was focused on reconnaissance and raids rather than taking and holding ground from the enemy. The Bradley didn't generally engage in hit and run tactics during the Gulf War, and was being used by a very well trained military against a rather badly trained military.

[Purpelia]

If you had to go to war in WW1 and could pick a rifle for your army which of these would you prefer and why?

1. A bolt action + lever action rifle thing. The gun is overall accurate and reliable and mostly a good bolt action rifle. But it was designed around an obsolete doctrine and thus weighed down by a pointless pump action style tumor that technically provides faster firing but at the cost of added weight up in the front of the gun for basically zero practical benifit. Feeds 7.5 Swiss from 12 round mags with stripper clips though. So you have a good cartridge good capacity and a fast reload.

2. Basically a Label. Complete with the god awful magazine and cartridge. But on the bright side it has a kings pattern style loading gate so you can top it up more easily. And the bayonet is neat.

3. A lever action in the style of the Winchester Model 1895 firing 7mm Mauser. Feeds from a 5 round magazine using en block clips that pop out the top Garand style because cool.

4. A revolver rifle using an odd Nagant style gas seal system and a metal cover for the cylinder to let you shoot without blowing your front hand off. Cartridge is also 7mm Mauser and it comes with 6 of them. The cylinder swings out for reloading. The trigger predictably sucks.