Infantry Discussion Thread part 11: Gallas Razor edition.

[The Manticoran Empire]

You know how most if not all MG's during WW2 and the like that were mounted on tanks had an option to be removable for infantry use complete with stocks, bipods and various other addons. Am I the only one that thinks this is somewhat pointless? I mean, I can't imagine people jumping out of a burning tank taking the time to pull out the MG and pick up all the accessories and assemble the gun instead of just running away. And I can't really imagine them dismounting the gun in any other scenario either because I'd rather be inside the giant metal box shooting out than outside of it.

So like what am I missing here? Or was that just one of those odd WW2 ideas everyone had and thought was good but wasn't?

That's mostly because those MGs were often initially mounted on tripods and to allow tank crews to fight if the tank is non-recoverable. In practice the MGs probably never left their mounts unless for cleaning and maintenance.

[Purpelia]

That's mostly because those MGs were often initially mounted on tripods and to allow tank crews to fight if the tank is non-recoverable.

I am aware of the concept. I just don't see it as something that would ever actually happen in reality.

In practice the MGs probably never left their mounts unless for cleaning and maintenance.

That's what I was thinking as well. I just can't imagine anyone ever being in a situation where it would be useful to actually dismount and fight with the MG and you actually can without being burned, shot up or worse. Cleaning and stuff sure, but like actually fighting with it? I ain't seeing it.

[The Manticoran Empire]

That's mostly because those MGs were often initially mounted on tripods and to allow tank crews to fight if the tank is non-recoverable.

I am aware of the concept. I just don't see it as something that would ever actually happen in reality.

In practice the MGs probably never left their mounts unless for cleaning and maintenance.

That's what I was thinking as well. I just can't imagine anyone ever being in a situation where it would be useful to actually dismount and fight with the MG and you actually can without being burned, shot up or worse. Cleaning and stuff sure, but like actually fighting with it? I ain't seeing it.

Maybe your tank is in the shop but they need more firepower?

[Spirit of Hope]

The cost in design and production time to make it so a machine gun that is mounted in a tank can also be mounted out of the tank is rather trivial in comparison to the total production requirement of time and resources, especially since a lot of tank MG's were just modifications on MG's the countries already were using. While the benefits aren't large they are there, so the question basically becomes why wouldn't you do it?

As to it happening in reality, I know there are a couple of cases of tank mounted MG's being used by infantry. From what I remember they were largely infantry scavenging from damaged/destroyed tanks not an official thing but it still meant the infantry had more MG's.

[Purpelia]

Maybe your tank is in the shop but they need more firepower?

I am aware tankers were some times pressed into infantry service in extreme situations such as when encircled but realistically I just don't see it as being doctrinal. Basically I am looking for a general discussion in order to figure out these things:
1. Just when did doctrine actually expect them to do this?
2. Did it actually happen as doctrinally expected?
3. Was it common at all or as I expect an extremely rare occurrence or as Spirit of Hope in random unrelated incidents.

[Gallia-]

Tankers spontaneously generate firearms so there's no real need to give PKT a mechanical trigger switch. You send a tank out to a field in Germany to do some dry runs and it comes back with a bustle full of M16s, FALs, and AKs.

I mean, it sorta has one, if you're not afraid of putting your fingers in places where fingers probably shouldn't be.

[Austrasien]

You know how most if not all MG's during WW2 and the like that were mounted on tanks had an option to be removable for infantry use complete with stocks, bipods and various other addons. Am I the only one that thinks this is somewhat pointless? I mean, I can't imagine people jumping out of a burning tank taking the time to pull out the MG and pick up all the accessories and assemble the gun instead of just running away. And I can't really imagine them dismounting the gun in any other scenario either because I'd rather be inside the giant metal box shooting out than outside of it.

So like what am I missing here? Or was that just one of those odd WW2 ideas everyone had and thought was good but wasn't?

Perceptions lagged reality for one thing. Relative to the number of riflemen machine guns were available in far larger quantities in WW2. But perceptions were still influenced by WW1 when machine guns had been comparatively scarce especially in the first two years.

[The Dolphin Isles]

iirc, tank desanting was pretty common for all countries in WWII. If you already have infantry units physically attached to the tanks, would it not be prudent to have a mounted MG on the tank that could be taken off if you need it? In addition to possible use while there are infantry riding you? You get an MG with your infantry, but do not have to worry about the weight of lugging one around on foot for most of the time. Additionally, in defensive postures, a mounted MG might be better suited in a different location than the tank. If the gun can't be taken off, you lose this flexibility.

[Austrasien]

iirc, tank desanting was pretty common for all countries in WWII. If you already have infantry units physically attached to the tanks, would it not be prudent to have a mounted MG on the tank that could be taken off if you need it? In addition to possible use while there are infantry riding you? You get an MG with your infantry, but do not have to worry about the weight of lugging one around on foot for most of the time. Additionally, in defensive postures, a mounted MG might be better suited in a different location than the tank. If the gun can't be taken off, you lose this flexibility.

The weapons in question are internal machine guns.

[Purpelia]

iirc, tank desanting was pretty common for all countries in WWII. If you already have infantry units physically attached to the tanks, would it not be prudent to have a mounted MG on the tank that could be taken off if you need it? In addition to possible use while there are infantry riding you? You get an MG with your infantry, but do not have to worry about the weight of lugging one around on foot for most of the time. Additionally, in defensive postures, a mounted MG might be better suited in a different location than the tank. If the gun can't be taken off, you lose this flexibility.

Perhaps I was unclear. I was referring to the machineguns mounted next to the main gun and in the hull front. The ones that in such circumstances the crew would be firing furiously in support of tank riders.

[Gallia-]

tank desantii are losers who dont know how to ride bicycles

[Post War America]

tank desantii are losers who dont know how to ride bicycles

Bicyclists are losers who don't know how to ride unicycles.

[Gallia-]

except you cant carry anything on a unicycle

[Post War America]

except you cant carry anything on a unicycle

You can if you believe.

[Sevvania]

Relevant:

Fiat-Revelli 1914 machine gun incorporated into a bicycle


The late 19th Century equivalent of Halo's Warthog


And tandem Maxims on a trike

[Gallia-]

I was actually thinking of towing a 120mm mortar with a pair of bicycles and an ammo pallet with the same.

Entire crew mounted on two quad cycles like the Maxim, and a single bike, with ammo for at least 2-3 minutes of firing.

[Barfleur]

I was actually thinking of towing a 120mm mortar with a pair of bicycles and an ammo pallet with the same.

Entire crew mounted on two quad cycles like the Maxim, and a single bike, with ammo for at least 2-3 minutes of firing.

No, use motorcycles.

[Gallia-]

Motorcycles defeat the purpose.

Might as well use a Humvee at that point. Or a 5-ton.

[Barfleur]

Motorcycles defeat the purpose.

Might as well use a Humvee at that point. Or a 5-ton.

Hardly. Motorcycles enable the riders to: (a) conserve their energy, and (b) maximize the load they can carry. Mortars are heavy, as is ammunition. Two motorcycles can carry more ammo than two guys on two bikes.

[Sevvania]

Motorcycles defeat the purpose.

Might as well use a Humvee at that point. Or a 5-ton.

Hardly. Motorcycles enable the riders to: (a) conserve their energy, and (b) maximize the load they can carry.

But so does a truck. I think he's wanting to do it without a motor.

[Gallia-]

Motorbikes compete with trucks. Both in terms of supply chain length (parts, POL, etc.) and requisite knowledge for maintenance.

While they can be maintained by one man (at least in terms of preventative maintenance) they cannot realistically be repaired on the march, nor can they support the same amount of mobility as a bicycle (anyone who has ever had to walk a motorcycle home knows this, especially when you've just finished filling it up with gas, at least I live downhill from the gas station and it's a few dozen yards away). In Malaya the Japanese carried their bicycles above their heads while fording rivers where bridges had been blown, which was quite often: the principal Australian-Anglo defense strategy was to slowly retreat across rivers and blow the bridges as they went, thinking this would stop the Japanese. It really didn't, like at all, because they weren't bound by the roads. These rivers were often 3-4 feet high, sometimes more, which would be difficult or impossible to ford in a motorcycle without a snorkeling kit: the intake would be flooded, the engine would choke, and the bike would die after a few feet. You would need to take it apart and drain the water, if you haven't ruined the engine or shorted the electrical system you can probably have it driving again after a day of constant work. Naturally this isn't a big problem if you've presited the fording location and swept it for rocks, but ain't nobody got time for that, and if you hit a bump or a stone or a pothole, you go down, even with a snorkel kit the bike will drown and probably choke immediately since you're sitting 70-80 lbs of fighting load on it. Have fun.

Conversely, a bicycle competes with walking, essentially. It's a simple machine at its heart: a pulley and chain, a pair of levers, and a drive axle and wheel, with a second wheel for steering. The naming of parts can take an afternoon, learning how to maintain and replace parts another afternoon, and you can learn to ride it in a week, easily. A ground force that has never even seen a bicycle can learn to use one in a few days extremely effectively, as the Malayan invasion shows us, along with the Boer War, and perhaps the American experience of LT J.A. Moss's bike ride of Buffalo Soldiers across 2,000 miles of rough country from Missoula to St. Louis. All attest to the bicycle's ability to transport troops and equipment across thousands of miles reliably. It requires no fuel beyond food, very little oil (oil sufficient to last a year or more can be carried in the pocket), and can carry more mass than a motorcycle: While not being used to move troops, General Giap's ground troops used bicycles with sticks on them to haul up to 500 lbs of ammunition and food, as porters. Sure, you could use a pair of trucks to move a dozen guys and ~3 tons of stuff. You now have a train ten times longer, because you need to supply dedicated wheeled vehicle mechanics, you can no longer carry spare parts for the vehicles except on further vehicles, and each vehicle needs its own fuel, transportation, and oil. And each man still needs food. You're also confined to roads.

The biggest reason Singapore fell so quickly is because bicycles gave the mostly unmechanized IJA the mobility it needed (comparable to trucks, really) to move quickly to encircle the road-bound British troops by fording at streams and enlisting/conscripting civilians to act as porters. This is not small, especially for troops who are going to need to go without transportation in the first place, such as paratroopers, or helicopter troops, who are often simply dumped on or near objects, walk to them (or fall on them) and sit in place until they can be picked up by airplanes again. We already know that bicycles can move extremely large masses, the U.S. Army used them to haul heavy machine guns in WW2, along with ammunition.

Bicycles can easily haul 300, 600, 800, even 1000 lbs, of course which is about the mass of the Soltam M-65 120mm mortar. Or the Swedish/Finnish KrH 120. Or the M120. One fit rider can probably move 1000 lbs at about 3-4 mph on good ground. Naturally he will probably want to walk the thing up a hill, probably with some help. A pair of riders can likely pedal with 700-800 lbs (~320-360 kg) at a moderate speed, even uphill, with a combination bicycle that joins together. For fording they can either detach the mortar and push it across separately with the bikes, or they can use a folding bicycle that can be strapped to their person and push the mortar across, it's not really important. If you absolutely must, you can always build a wooden raft or something to cross the river. This contrasts favorably with the ability to not move a towed mortar at all if you're dismounted, because you're being forced to push a 600 lbs mortar uphill while carrying 80-100 lbs of stuff on your person, without the benefits of any sort of mechanical advantage or leverage.

Besides this, bicycles have a fairly unique property of being an actually useful interstice, unlike most things that live between stuff: when choosing between walking and riding you generally walk because you want to maintain a low signature from air observation. This is because riding produces clouds of dust, smoke, thermal signatures, or large radar returns, all of which can be easily spotted from aircraft and even from the ground. Compared to motorcycles, besides perhaps the much vaunted and somewhat impractical "electric (or hybrid) motorcycle" (even then it would need to go slowly). They also have the lowest acoustic signature short of "crawling on the ground". Allied troops in Malaya could not hear a Japanese column beyond about 150 yards, much less see it. This would probably be comparable to an electric motorbike, actually, at least in similar mass. The difference is that the electric (or worse, hybrid) bike requires as much, and probably more, infrastructure as a ordinary KLR or something: it requires energy and charging that cannot be reasonably foraged. Or it requires fuel cells. Or it requires diesel. Or gasoline. All of which will need to come from somewhere. Which again, adds to the tail, which inherently is not bad, but a large tail makes a large signature. And a large signature can be seen. And then it gets killed.

Bicycles, among all forms of transportation besides perhaps "find a new vehicle, steal it, and put all your shit in the new one", have no inherent requirement for supply beyond carrying a spare chain, some lube, a cloth, a wrench set, a pump, a puncture kit, and a pair of tubes. This can be carried in your pockets, or on the bike itself in a tiny bag or satchel. Stuff like frames, handles, brake lines, brake pads, gears, and wheels/rims will generally not be damaged outside of extreme cases. In the 25th IR's 2,000 mile march they had one structural failure of a bike. This was with 1890s metallurgy and quality control. They completed the initial run from Missoula to Yellowstone in 10 days, which is about 500 miles. Very likely had you attempted to walk such a distance you would likely find it very difficult to complete in less than a fortnight, if not a month. You would also suffer casualties from walking, such as blisters, sores, possibly sprained ankles from falls or slips, and sickness, probably more in less time than bicycles, if only due to the energy exerted in walking being almost 5x higher than riding a bicycle, which is the most energy efficient transportation method we know.

Not really sure what the complaint is, really. Ultimately, everything expended requires calories. Whether those calories are stored as olive oil, bread and protein, the dead corpses of your comrades and civilians, or diesel fuel is irrelevant. Does diesel have more energy density than animal fat? Sure, absolutely. Does it have enough to compensate for the increased hunger of the automobile compared to walking? Sure. Compared to the bicycle? Absolutely not. Where animal fat has about 37 kJ/gram, an equivalent mass of diesel when consumed has 45 kJ. I think there is some energy lost here in heat (it depends on the engine I imagine), but I don't know to what extent the human body can translate fat to energy. It's probably more efficient than a truck, though. Regardless, this is about a 20-25% improvement in energy density. And driving doesn't reduce the amount of energy you need to bring with you, because you're still bringing animal fats, so it only adds to the problem of signature.

The one minor nitpick about bicycle troops is that they are ultimately light infantry, in the truest sense, akin to paratroopers, and so the amount of ammunition and amount of weapons they can carry is rather limited. This is not terribly problematic if they are used to encircle and envelop formations to be destroyed later by more conventional mechanized forces, akin to mottis, though. Which is exactly how I envision them being used. Besides that they can also be used as anti-guerrilla troops, as fighters in close terrains such as forests or perhaps extremely car-unfriendly/pedestrian safe cities and towns, and as a means of giving paratroopers the ability to move several dozen kilometers a day without increasing their airlifted mass too much, either as a means of securing more favorable terrain, or more likely as a means of securing the safety of the assault force by letting them land 30 kilometers from a airbase instead of literally on top of the runway.

On the other hand, they are difficult to spot from the air, they are impossible to hear over the sound of a tank engine, and they are surprisingly quick. The latter might be something of a one-trick pony but the former two are sufficient enough that a bicycle column won't actually need to be pulling stuff like a Chaparral or a Vulcan to protect itself when it can simply go to ground when it suspects it may be being observed from the air, and the second means that it should be pretty effective against armored formations, at least until the ammunition runs out. It can, of course, always be augmented by additional artillery and aviation support, and a bicycle troop can conduct the same sort of frontal assaults against strongpoints that armor simply can't, because it is inherently an infantry formation.

If I can figure out how to mount a stubby M81 152mm gun-launcher on a thing towable by a bicycle then I've reinvented the tank infantry gun and bicyclists don't even need to fear pillboxes now.

Hardly. Motorcycles enable the riders to: (a) conserve their energy, and (b) maximize the load they can carry.

But so does a truck. I think he's wanting to do it without a motor.

Motorbikes are fine for troops that don't need trucks. Couriers, some reconnaissance troops (route recon/traffic controllers), wire layers, and the like, among them.

[Barfleur]

I saw the strangest French design, a motorcycle with an antitank cannon on it. What would the flaws be of such an idea, and if there are any benefits, what are they? From what I can tell it's fast and mobile, but completely unprotected and with a short range due to fuel needs.

[Gallia-]

The Vespa just carried a RCLR, a tripod, and some ammo.

You park behind a hill or something, get off the bike, take the RCLR off, assemble it in line of sight of the target, and use it normally.

Duh.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

bicycle infantry are a great choice in some situations but they fit that unfortunate role of "economical problem" which is why we rarely saw them IRL, but the advantages of such infantry are not overstated and galla gave nice summary of the potential benefits of motorcycle units, even in large scale.

[Gallia-]

I think Anglos are just biased against anything that looks "low-tech"/isn't a civilian fad, and everyone else who used them either got stomped in the end (Japan, Germany) or fell under thrall of the Anglo-American dominated Atlantic Alliance (Nederlands, etc.). Neutral states that didn't become the thralls of either of the Cold War blocs that had bike troops had them for a long time. Sweden and Suisse kept them until the Berlin Wall fell, which I suspect they were more a victim of budget cuts than anything. Once automobiles go out of fashion/production I'm sure Anglos will be the first to jump on the bandwagon of this new "marching" thing.

good pfp