Infantry Discussion Thread part 11: Gallas Razor edition.

[Kampala-]

"Light mechanized" is like "almost pregnant". There is no spectrum to navigate. You're either too heavy to airlift, or you're not, and you already have airborne divisions anyway so what are you trying to do even?

"Light"

"Light" enough to be air-lifted. As opposed to so "heavy" it needs to be sealifted. There is no "medium" except in Shinseki's fever dreams. The definition of a "light infantry division" is so precise it requires several binders to properly define, though, so I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that "military germs" are "vague and straightforward" (somehow) TBH. There is an actual tonnage/mass that goes into defining the distinction, which is a function of airlifter capacity, mission range, turnaround times, airport throughput, and cycle periods; but since that tonnage varies it's usually stuck on weird things that serve as hypothetical ballparks, like "airlift this brigade 4,500 miles from Fort Drum to Bosnia" or whatever.

what the hell does "operation" mean

When the genius level IQ can crack the mystery of "semantics" and "context" you can answer this question for yourself.

[Manokan Republic]

Triangular vs square? From fireteam up to division level.

I prefer triangular formations at the squad level because it gives you the ability to do complex geometric attacks, like two teams can do leap frog and the third team can flank, or one unit can pin the enemy down and the other two can flank and so on. L ambushes and various other forms of attack, surrounding the enemy and other formations become possible, rather than just with two units where it's pretty straight forward. I also prefer it at the platoon level, but a 4 man unit at the platoon level is fine.

One way to operate with square units is like the navy seals, with four groups of four, for a "platoon" of 16 guys, usually +2 sniper teams per platoon, of 2 guys each for a total of 20 guys per platoon. This gives four fireteams the ability to fire and maneuver in even more complex ways, which acts like triangular division but with one extra group to do other things.


The main difference however is that square or penta teams divisions of military units tend to result in a different configuration of the squads and platoons, rather than simply using a perfectly symmetrical amount of men like triangular divisions try to do. So an army squad is 9 men, which operates in teams of 3, for 27 men, vs. 3 14 man squads for the marines, which is 42 men. However army platoons typically also have things like machine guns and mortars attached to them. So typically penta or square divisions of units use smaller squads and at times platoons, and are also typically not perfectly symmetrical. While at the company level they are penta, at the squad or platoon level they often are not, or if they are include things like machine gun teams.

[Manokan Republic]

"Light"

"Light" enough to be air-lifted. As opposed to so "heavy" it needs to be sealifted. There is no "medium" except in Shinseki's fever dreams. The definition of a "light infantry division" is so precise it requires several binders to properly define, though, so I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that "military germs" are "vague and straightforward" (somehow) TBH. There is an actual tonnage/mass that goes into defining the distinction, which is a function of airlifter capacity, mission range, turnaround times, airport throughput, and cycle periods; but since that tonnage varies it's usually stuck on weird things that serve as hypothetical ballparks, like "airlift this brigade 4,500 miles from Fort Drum to Bosnia" or whatever.

There are plenty of light units that are not also airborne units, for example light infantry like the rangers. The term light infantry typically means infantry that move on foot or in small vehicles, as opposed to heavy infantry which travel in vehicles or heavy vehicles. Mechanized means armored APC's typically, where as motorized means unarmored, but that's more of an archaic term that's fallen out of use. These terms have changed over time as well, with some "light units" still retaining the traditional definition while many more have changed to mean units that emphasize speed and firepower over defense.

And theoretically even an M1 abrams can be airlifted, so does that make an M1 abrams "light"? The question of whether something can be airlifted or not depends on the plane. For example, the C-17 can carry an M1 abrams, and a C-5 Galaxy can carry two. There are even cases of an M1 abrams being deployed quickly in to battle with an aircraft. So if light is based on tonnage and air-lifting capabilities, what does that make an M1 abrams or any other tank for that matter, most of which are smaller than the M1 abrams? The definition is not whether it can be airlifted or not and I'm not really sure where you got that definition from. If you have a source I'd love to see it.

what the hell does "operation" mean

When the genius level IQ can crack the mystery of "semantics" and "context" you can answer this question for yourself.

It was a Rhetorical device to denote how silly it is. I go on to answer that question later in my post, showing that I actually know what it means and how it works. I also do understand semantics and context, which was the whole point. Context changes what a word means, which was my entire point of why "light mechanized" units are light in comparison to "heavy mechanized" units.

As an aside, a really good one is the term "division", when all military units are divisions of a bigger unit of some kind. Calling it a "division" when the word is so generic and vague is kind of funny.

[Kampala-]

There are plenty of light units that are not also airborne units,

But their DRBs are all light enough to be airlifted by the C-17s in 72 hours. ):

why "light mechanized" units are light in comparison to "heavy mechanized" units.

The point is that mechanization generally makes a thing too heavy to be airlifted. A VDV division is large enough to be airlifted by C-17s with full mechanization. That doesn't mean it won't evaporate when it meets an armored cavalry regiment (or heaven forbid a reserve brigade of a tank division) because its vehicles weigh 10 tons and barely protect the passengers against sneezes, let alone 155mm splinter and heavy machine guns.

To make something that is "light mechanized" requires a lot of high technology weapons. Which are impossible to make, which we know, because we've tried.

You end up with something that is the worst of both worlds: the "protection" of a light unit with the maintenance requirements of a heavy one.

Tank units are useful because they move around under fire because they are bullet/shellproof. Light units are useful because they can be moved around quickly by aircraft and appear at unexpected places. While it would be nice to have a vehicle that can meet both things (a 15-20 vehicle that is protected like a 50-55 ton one) it appears to be impossible since we can't even make vehicles that are 15-20 tons and protected like 30 ton vehicles (but we can make 25 ton vehicles protected like 30 ton ones). Barring magical materials that provide the protection of high hardness steel and the weight of carbon fiber, for the cost of either, you aren't getting past this.

[Manokan Republic]

There are plenty of light units that are not also airborne units,

But their DRBs are all light enough to be airlifted by the C-17s in 72 hours. ):

You could also transport a tank platoon in 72 hours if you wanted, by using C-17's or C-5's. It was actually done in Mogadishu for example.

why "light mechanized" units are light in comparison to "heavy mechanized" units.

The point is that mechanization generally makes a thing too heavy to be airlifted. A VDV division is large enough to be airlifted by C-17s with full mechanization. That doesn't mean it won't evaporate when it meets an armored cavalry regiment (or heaven forbid a reserve brigade of a tank division) because its vehicles weigh 10 tons and barely protect the passengers against sneezes, let alone 155mm splinter and heavy machine guns.

To make something that is "light mechanized" requires a lot of high technology weapons. Which are impossible to make, which we know, because we've tried.

You end up with something that is the worst of both worlds: the "protection" of a light unit with the maintenance requirements of a heavy one.

But they exist? For example many airborne units deploy with humvees, and some with completely unarmored vehicles. Regardless the definition of light does not mean air lifted and U.S. infantry designations differentiate between light and airborne units. Light infantry is a generic term for any infantry other than airborne units and mechanized units, and sometimes excluding special forces/ranger units.

[Kampala-]

But their DRBs are all light enough to be airlifted by the C-17s in 72 hours. ):

You could also transport a tank platoon in 72 hours if you wanted, by using C-17's or C-5's. It was actually done in Mogadishu for example.

Amazing.

But they exist?

No, they don't. Stryker BCTs aren't really air lifted in any sense of the word. They're pre-positioned like any armored unit.

Regardless the definition of light does not mean air lifted

This is wrong. You know it because your genius level IQ has already absorbed the definition of the light infantry division and this is some kind of massive edge power move I guess.

Light infantry is a generic term

It's incredibly specific, but your 150+ IQ knows this already.

C-17 didn't exist when the TO&E was written for the light infantry division either since they were using C-141s as the planning factor. RIP "Abrams". Let me refresh your memory so you know I've seen what the genius IQ has seen: Light infantry are defined explicitly by their air mobility. It was the key planning factor that went into the division design process and why it was stripped of all logistics and toof:tailz ratio for FOXHOLE STRONF. Because Big Army needed to fit as many guns as possible into n C-141s (it was 500 sorties at 4,500 miles) for a LID. Which is why the division runs around in Humvees and 5-tons instead of Bradleys. Ditto IBCT being airlifted in 72 hours by something number of C-141s over 4,500 miles.

The Army really likes the 4,500 mile figure because it puts American bases on the East Coast within range of Germany/Europe.

There is a specific mass figure that can be worked out by using Air Force planning factors but the Army just uses n airlifters (it's usually C-141s, although they might have changed it to C-17 as the planning factor now) as a proxy for it. The mass throughput can be altered by using tougher cycle times too, but I'm not sure the Army actually knows this. Explaining this to the IQ 150+ genius is a bit patronizing though, so I'll stop explaining basic things and simply let you do your thing. Sorry for assuming you don't know what a light infantry division is, I shouldn't have to assume such a thing when dealing with such a towering intellect; much as you shouldn't have to assume that people in these threads don't know how IR/UV seekers work.

Oh wait you don't actually know either of those things. You just pick up knowledge that people drop in these threads to pad out your adverb ridden Basic Bab Tier knowledge posts to make you seem smarter and better read than you actually are. Unfortunate. You could at least admit that and make the process of learning easier though.

[Purpelia]

You seem to be ignoring the obvious solution here:

Ass plate.

Squat down, drop the ass plate. You got yourself a tripod!

Exactly! You got to think outside the box. xP

At that point why not go all out and have a whole pelvic mounted harness for the mortar? Like I am thinking a belt to suspend the whole weight off your waste instead of your legs. And than you have an extra strap that goes between your legs to secure the whole thing. And your butt plate attaches to said strap on the rear. And the mortar hangs off the front. And when you want to fire you just have to sit down, grip the mortar firmly with both hands and point it in the general direction of the enemy. And when you aren't using it the mortar just hangs there leaving your hands free to hold a rifle or something.

Add some pouches to the belt for spare rounds and you're golden.

[Gallia-]

Crotch mortar.

The new codpiece.

[Manokan Republic]

You could also transport a tank platoon in 72 hours if you wanted, by using C-17's or C-5's. It was actually done in Mogadishu for example.

Amazing.

But they exist?

No, they don't. Stryker BCTs aren't really air lifted in any sense of the word. They're pre-positioned like any armored unit.

Regardless the definition of light does not mean air lifted

This is wrong. You know it because your genius level IQ has already absorbed the definition of the light infantry division and this is some kind of massive edge power move I guess.

Strykers are not the only mechanized unit available, and there are air dropped units. In fact Stryker brigades aren't even referred to as mechanized by official U.S. military terminology, they're "stryker" units, and mechanized refers to bradely's and a few others.

If you have a source to confirm that "light" means air lifted for the U.S. military, and that no-one ever uses light for any other purpose, then I'd love to see it, otherwise I'm calling this one and I'm pretty sure you're just pulling this out of thin air.

Light infantry is a generic term

It's incredibly specific, but your 150+ IQ knows this already.

C-17 didn't exist when the TO&E was written for the light infantry division either since they were using C-141s as the planning factor. RIP "Abrams". Let me refresh your memory so you know I've seen what the genius IQ has seen: Light infantry are defined explicitly by their air mobility. It was the key planning factor that went into the division design process and why it was stripped of all logistics and toof:tailz ratio for FOXHOLE STRONF. Because Big Army needed to fit as many guns as possible into n C-141s (it was 500 sorties at 4,500 miles) for a LID. Which is why the division runs around in Humvees and 5-tons instead of Bradleys. Ditto IBCT being airlifted in 72 hours by something number of C-141s over 4,500 miles.

The Army really likes the 4,500 mile figure because it puts American bases on the East Coast within range of Germany/Europe.

There is a specific mass figure that can be worked out by using Air Force planning factors but the Army just uses n airlifters (it's usually C-141s, although they might have changed it to C-17 as the planning factor now) as a proxy for it. The mass throughput can be altered by using tougher cycle times too, but I'm not sure the Army actually knows this. Explaining this to the IQ 150+ genius is a bit patronizing though, so I'll stop explaining basic things and simply let you do your thing. Sorry for assuming you don't know what a light infantry division is, I shouldn't have to assume such a thing when dealing with such a towering intellect; much as you shouldn't have to assume that people in these threads don't know how IR/UV seekers work.

Oh wait you don't actually know either of those things. You just pick up knowledge that people drop in these threads to pad out your adverb ridden Basic Bab Tier knowledge posts to make you seem smarter and better read than you actually are. Unfortunate. You could at least admit that and make the process of learning easier though.

Being a genius doesn't mean infinite knowledge, it just means good processing ability. I.Q. is a measure of the ability to learn well and think quickly, and it's an aggregate measure. A person with a really high I.Q. might suck at some things. It's why some people become Doctor's, and other people become astrophysicists and so on and so forth. Being a genius doesn't mean being good at everything. Even experts in their field are wrong about some things, some of the times. Einstein in particularly considered his failure on the idea the universe was shrinking, instead of expanding, to be his greatest blunder. The universe is clearly expanding, but Einstein couldn't believe it at first.

Secondly you have yet to actually provide a source of any kind confirming that light means air lifted, and there's also the fact that many other military's around the world use the term light differently than the U.S. military. If you can't, I'm calling bullshit on this. The term "light infantry" dates back to the 1700's, including the British, Turks, and even the Americans. It's a term used before WWII to denote our infantry, before airborne units were common. Since then the term has transformed from it's original meaning of skirmishers to mean a wide variety of different types of infantry, but for the most part it's lightly equipped infantry. Because the pentagon website is down for some reason, I'll give you the wikipedia article which sources it. The U.S. military has three types of infantry, light infantry (consisting of four sub-types), Stryker infantry, and mechanized infantry. Of the four subtypes of light infantry, we have light infantry, airborne infantry, air assault infantry, and ranger infantry. The term "Light infantry" us used when there is light infantry with no other subtype, such as being airborne. As airborne or air-assault units are those which are capable of being air lifted in to combat, light infantry doesn't specifically mean an air-lifted force, it's just denoting it's status as a non-mechanized force, or only lightly mechanized, like with humvees.

[Manokan Republic]

Exactly! You got to think outside the box. xP

At that point why not go all out and have a whole pelvic mounted harness for the mortar? Like I am thinking a belt to suspend the whole weight off your waste instead of your legs. And than you have an extra strap that goes between your legs to secure the whole thing. And your butt plate attaches to said strap on the rear. And the mortar hangs off the front. And when you want to fire you just have to sit down, grip the mortar firmly with both hands and point it in the general direction of the enemy. And when you aren't using it the mortar just hangs there leaving your hands free to hold a rifle or something.

Add some pouches to the belt for spare rounds and you're golden.

CROTCH MORTAR, AWAY!

The only problem I envision is that when you're running it'll bang in to your legs or throw you off balance. But maybe if you like swung it around or something, off your back. Also you couldn't lay prone, which would be useful if it's say, on your back or something. A quick deploy mortar backpack exists, but you usually take it off your back first. You can fire it attached to your backpack, so you just drop it, fire, then pick it up and run again, and it carries some ammunition next to it already and whatnot. Perhaps one with a smaller mortar would work out alright, but I still don't think it's good for a normal fireteam.

[Purpelia]

It shouldn't really swing sideways at all if you attach it via a hinge or something. And you'll need to do that if you want to actually transfer the recoil through your body and to the but pad. Just having a soft connection like a carbiner won't do for that. And getting down prone shouldn't be too much of a problem either assuming it can bend backward and between your legs. I mean, it shouldn't be more in the way than all the other crap soldiers wear on their chest these days.

But I can see how you might want to have some sort of locking mechanism, maybe even a carbiner on your chest that lets you just fold the whole thing up and keep it up in between uses. That would also allow you to carry it loaded. Although I imagine that would be unsafe.

[Manokan Republic]

I am thinking bullpup, full length rails on top (aside from the bit you put your face on in the back, think FAMAS) but on top of a full length carry handle. And than like an FAMAS style bolt handle that goes under the carry handle. Only the handle is like half as tall as an FAMAS one because you don't need to reach in to grab the bolt handle as it protrudes out the side into Swiss barrel style grips. So it only needs to have like 3cm or something of space underneath and thus you can like use the sights more easily and the thing is less bulky and stuff but still has a cool handle.

Comment.

For what? Just any bullpup, an infantry rifle etc.

[Purpelia]

I am thinking bullpup, full length rails on top (aside from the bit you put your face on in the back, think FAMAS) but on top of a full length carry handle. And than like an FAMAS style bolt handle that goes under the carry handle. Only the handle is like half as tall as an FAMAS one because you don't need to reach in to grab the bolt handle as it protrudes out the side into Swiss barrel style grips. So it only needs to have like 3cm or something of space underneath and thus you can like use the sights more easily and the thing is less bulky and stuff but still has a cool handle.

Comment.

For what? Just any bullpup, an infantry rifle etc.

I drew up a mockup already. Will upload it as soon as I figure out an image upload site that works.

[Manokan Republic]

For what? Just any bullpup, an infantry rifle etc.

I drew up a mockup already. Will upload it as soon as I figure out an image upload site that works.

Awesome, do you have an idea for the operating system? Like, long stroke gas piston, short stroke etc.

[Purpelia]

I drew up a mockup already. Will upload it as soon as I figure out an image upload site that works.

Awesome, do you have an idea for the operating system? Like, long stroke gas piston, short stroke etc.

No idea. But like what ever it is it needs to be locked, not delayed (because I hate delayed actions) and the barrel can't move. But everything else is anyone's guess.
I am somewhat partial to roller locked, just because its needlessly more complex than a rotating bolt. But I know that you can't really beat the AR bolt. So yea...
Maybe like an AR bolt hitched to the M1 carbine action.

Either way, like I won't pursue this project beyond the outside mockup stage as I can't really be bothered to do flash any more. Too much work.

[Manokan Republic]

Awesome, do you have an idea for the operating system? Like, long stroke gas piston, short stroke etc.

No idea. But like what ever it is it needs to be locked, not delayed (because I hate delayed actions) and the barrel can't move. But everything else is anyone's guess.
I am somewhat partial to roller locked, just because its needlessly more complex than a rotating bolt. But I know that you can't really beat the AR bolt. So yea...
Maybe like an AR bolt hitched to the M1 carbine action.

Either way, like I won't pursue this project beyond the outside mockup stage as I can't really be bothered to do flash any more. Too much work.

Yeah I understand. I usually like to go with the HK416, FN SCAR or Tavor, because those usually perform pretty well. In military tests they were found to jam less in dusty environments and they're usually fairly accurate. The HK416 is also based on the XM8, but supposedly is an improved variant of it. I think some versions might be, and one HK416 was responsible for like half the jams so it's reliability should be on par with the XM8.

The FN SCAR has a version that automatically switches from hot to cold as well, known as the FN HAMR, which is kind of neat for a SAW variant.

[Purpelia]

Visually it's going to look like an XM-8 because that's what I hacked apart to make the mockup. Like, that and a K31 for bits and rails from a random AR picture off the internet.

[Manokan Republic]

Visually it's going to look like an XM-8 because that's what I hacked apart to make the mockup. Like, that and a K31 for bits and rails from a random AR picture off the internet.

Neat! So a bullpup XM8 with rails? Sounds pretty cool.

[Manokan Republic]

So I'm considering replacing the majority of my medium machine guns (usually a 7.62mm NATO round) at the platoon level with .338 norma machine guns. So instead of an M240, I'd use the LWMMG. The basic idea is that because such machine gunners have to be really far back behind the rest of the platoon, it has improved power over the majority rounds in the squad, and the long range engagements distances of many environments requires a longer range weapon, (such as the deserts, mountains, or other areas), a more powerful cartridge would be particularly useful to have. When you consider that the U.S. has been outranged by the PKM in Iraq and Afghanistan, it kind of makes sense to have a longer range than these weapons, and also it maintains a similar range to the .50 caliber round, with only one sniper kill in the world with a .50 cal outranging the .338 lapua. The round has roughly double the range of the 7.62mm NATO, with an effective range of a .338 sniper rifle or 1500-2000 meters, compared to about 850-1000 meters for a 7.62mm NATO round. On top of this, the rounds can pierce level III armor, and can do so out to 1100 yards, giving them the ability to defeat most light vehicles like a humvee, or shoot through barriers a .308 cannot like really thick walls, and can shoot through the same barriers at long ranges due to it's good aerodynamics and high power. The gun itself is only 24 pounds, less than a typical M240 at 25-27.5 pounds, and has minimal recoil and relatively high accuracy. The only drawback is the weight of the ammunition, as it's more or less double the weight of the 7.62mm NATO, but this can be compensated for by using caseless ammunition, which does not exist for the .338 yet, but would theoretically be roughly the weight of the propellant and bullet, reducing it to about the same weight as the 7.62mm NATO. Of course it would still be double the weight of this 7.62mm caseless ammunition.

I'd imagine that a typical machine gun team could carry the gun and 50 pounds of ammunition each, or 425 rounds per person, so a 3 man team could carry about 1275 rounds. This is going on 45.5 grams per round and an 8 gram belt link for a combined 53.5 grams per round. If carried in metal ammunition boxes, it would be a bit heavier and cut it down by a sizeable amount.

You could also start incorporating .308 machine guns like the Mk. 48 in two squads instead, as it's also the same weight as the M249 machine gun. Or there's the LSAT machine gun which is just 14 pounds and has ammunition that is caseless and roughly the same weight as the 5.56mm, or half the weight of the 7.62mm NATO, and 70% lighter with cased telescopic polymer rounds.

[-AlEmAnNiA-]

"Gallia-" would type "triangle" and then mention IQ or smth

cool kids use pentagon tho

holy moly stop changing your flag

no

at this point i assume anything that has red is plam

i hide my linearts accordingly

i'm a cartographer and heralder now

[Gallia-]

holy moly stop changing your flag

no

at this point i assume anything that has red is plam

i hide my linearts accordingly

i'm a cartographer and heralder now

maps and coats of arms are still linearts

Being a genius doesn't mean infinite knowledge, it just means good processing ability.

No, it doesn't. To either. Vague language > real definitions though. "Being a genius" means you have a 3-sigma IQ. Having a 3-sigma IQ means a lot of things. Maybe the most layman of them can be distilled as a non-defined "processing ability" whatever that is. One of the outcomes, though, is being well read and being able to put together arguments using proper spelling and grammar, since the lowliest of abilities is rote memorization. And no, having an IQ doesn't make you right all the time nor does it make you an expert at anything, just look at Christopher Langan, professional troll and IQ 190, with his "CTMU" dank meme. His entire life outside of running a ranch consists of shitposting on Quora, IRC, and vigorously editing his Wikipedia to present the most positive aspects of his own life. A cool guy, but he isn't an expert at anything; he's a well-read layman.

Thus even the proverbial "cave genius" like Langan ends up being able to hammer out a philosophical theory [and BOY is it philosophical and not at all mathematical], even if it has some fairly egregious points of contention, like being unfalsifiable, lacking conservation of energy, and Langan using idiosyncratic definitions of pre-existing terms while yelling at people who complain about him doing this because it makes it unnecessarily dense. So if someone who comes of age in an environment with a paucity of literature and written knowledge (and a massive ego) can more or less hammer out that, why can't you follow my highly developed and massively complex thought process? Hmm, strange.

So, if anything, anyone with a 3-sigma (the bigger the better) IQ will be able to produce for themselves a fairly reasonable standard of living, at least. If not an outright cult of personality to boot (as C. Langan has done), without much effort at all, it's something that just sort of happens. Much like tall people being good at basketball and people with long arms being good at swimming, people with big IQs tend to be good at social manipulation and use of weaponized information to further their own goals, and while having a big IQ doesn't influence those goals it generally tends to put you in a ballpark for being able to make cogent arguments that can persuade people of certain positions to do certain things, among other things. Things like "give you money," or "send you a C&D and a lawsuit for stealing the Mega Society's name for your organization," etc.

There are other examples of the "wasted potential" category of high IQs but I doubt you're in it. You're too wrong too often, but you do fit the general stereotype of "insecure high IQ hiding behind vague language" at first blush.

Secondly you have yet to actually provide a source of any kind confirming that light means air lifted,

I figured people knew about U.S. Army division organizations of the Cold War and all that and didn't think I'd have to explain how it actually got defined or that anyone would think it wasn't about airlift capacity.

Anyway the specific requirements for the "light infantry division" when it was sketched out in the 1980s are freely available on Google. You can find them yourself, it's literally on the first page of the web results. But given you're constantly quoting Wikipedia like it's some kind of holy tome, I guess if you can't find it on Wikipedia then it's not really a source. I learned that lesson a while ago when I made the mistake of providing you with real sources. C'est la vie. Anyway the point I was getting at was your genius level IQ means if you had any real interest in the matter you should already know this stuff, though, which really proves that you don't have any interest at all in the matter. Alternatively it proves you don't have a genius level IQ (or really an IQ much higher than average) and prefer to focus your efforts on backpedaling and playing semantic games when it would be easier for you to just admit you have no clue what you're talking about, unless you are doing some sort of hyper time wasting exercise, in which case it is silly to continue.

Either way, giving you a real source is a bit of a wasted effort. It's not hard to type four words into Google. It's even less difficult if you actually enjoy reading about that sort of stuff.

If you can't, I'm calling bullshit on this.

Cool. Good thing I don't care what you think.

[Free-Don]

With the discussions of crotch, back, and hip mortars.... with all that extra stuff, attachments, and gear couldn't you just have a base plate and shoot it off like a normal grenade discharger thing and it would work just as well without all the complex parts and setup? Leaving the direct fire role to rifle grenades, under barrel launchers, and dedicated launchers rather than forcing a mortar to fulfill the role?

[Manokan Republic]

With the discussions of crotch, back, and hip mortars.... with all that extra stuff, attachments, and gear couldn't you just have a base plate and shoot it off like a normal grenade discharger thing and it would work just as well without all the complex parts and setup? Leaving the direct fire role to rifle grenades, under barrel launchers, and dedicated launchers rather than forcing a mortar to fulfill the role?

Well yes, which is probably why grenade launchers are better than a mortar for a squad.

But it's a neat idea to try and figure out a way to make mortars work at the squad level. I would personally prefer a slightly longer range 50mm mortar with a 1200 meter range, and to hang back from the squad as a sort of squad support unit rather than a part of the fireteams themselves. Or even better yet just mount it on the vehicle rather than have a soldier carry it around. Potentially hundreds of rounds and no logistics hassle.

[Manokan Republic]

Being a genius doesn't mean infinite knowledge, it just means good processing ability.

No, it doesn't. To either. Vague language > real definitions though. "Being a genius" means you have a 3-sigma IQ. Having a 3-sigma IQ means a lot of things. Maybe the most layman of them can be distilled as a non-defined "processing ability" whatever that is. One of the outcomes, though, is being well read and being able to put together arguments using proper spelling and grammar, since the lowliest of abilities is rote memorization. And no, having an IQ doesn't make you right all the time nor does it make you an expert at anything, just look at Christopher Langan, professional troll and IQ 190, with his "CTMU" dank meme. His entire life outside of running a ranch consists of shitposting on Quora, IRC, and vigorously editing his Wikipedia to present the most positive aspects of his own life. A cool guy, but he isn't an expert at anything; he's a well-read layman.

Thus even the proverbial "cave genius" like Langan ends up being able to hammer out a philosophical theory [and BOY is it philosophical and not at all mathematical], even if it has some fairly egregious points of contention, like being unfalsifiable, lacking conservation of energy, and Langan using idiosyncratic definitions of pre-existing terms while yelling at people who complain about him doing this because it makes it unnecessarily dense. So if someone who comes of age in a paucity of literature and knowledge can more or less hammer out that, why can't you follow my highly developed and massively complex thought process? Hmm, strange.

So, if anything, anyone with a 3-sigma (the bigger the better) IQ will be able to produce for themselves a fairly reasonable standard of living, at least. If not an outright cult of personality to boot (as C. Langan has done), without much effort at all, it's something that just sort of happens. Much like tall people being good at basketball and people with long arms being good at swimming, people with big IQs tend to be good at social manipulation and use of weaponized information to further their own goals, and while having a big IQ doesn't influence those goals it generally tends to put you in a ballpark for being able to make cogent arguments that can persuade people of certain positions to do certain things, among other things. Things like "give you money," or "send you a C&D and a lawsuit for stealing the Mega Society's name for your organization," etc.

There are other examples of the "wasted potential" category of high IQs but I doubt you're in them. You're too wrong too often, but you do fit the general stereotype of "insecure high IQ hiding behind vague language" at first blush.

You constantly try and debate the intricacies of semantics in language without realizing that it has little to do with the conversation at hand and that words have multiple meanings. It should be quite simple to realize that many different words and phrases can have many different meanings, but you continue to insist that you are the lord of all grammar and word usage, and thus remembering which exact word to use is not only a sign of intelligence, but somehow of high philosophical understanding and also a reflection of I.Q. In reality, remembering things is actually at the bottom of the totem pole of intelligence and, higher levels of intelligence show originality and creation, with incredibly rigid and doctrinal ways of thinking correlating with low I.Q. In Bloom's Taxonomy of Intelligence, remembering is generally related as the lowest level of intelligence, while creating and evaluating is regarded as first in the sequence of intelligence, while studies generally consistently show a correlation between cognitive fluidity and I.Q. [1][2] Conversely the more rigid of thinking you have, the less intelligent you tend to be. An inability to accept new definitions of words is an example of over rigidity and therefore a poorly thinking mind. You tend to treat language in an analytical mindset as opposed to a more intuitive one, and as a necessary component to an aggregate I.Q. score, is an indication of overly simplistic thinking and an emphasis on one way of thinking simply inhibits conversation.

You also apply very specific outcomes to a broad topic and don't seem to realize that your own interpretation of things are not reality. Not all geniuses are manipulative or socially oriented for example, or intensely focused on very specific definitions for words that have multiple definitions and have been used historically to mean many different things. The term "light infantry" refers to a lot of things, from infantry back to the 1700's to light infantry in the U.S. military to infantry in the British and French military's, so to claim that it only refers to units that can be air lifted in 500 sorties from C-141's for example when that only applies to specific light infantry divisions, is more than disingenuous, it's actually wrong. The term has many meanings, and the hyper specificity and inability comprehend complex languages and the insistence on only one use of the word, and yet the strange portrayal of that of being philosophical complexity when in reality it's as basal and simplistic as one can get, is more of a reflection of your own banality and simple mindedness.

Words have different means, and just like the word top can mean many things, such as the lid to a jar, a toy, or a shirt, the term light infantry has many definitions and has been used differently over the years. It doesn't take a lot of intelligence to understand this, but your continued insistence that it only be used one way is obviously an indication of the affore mentioned issues.

Anyway the specific requirements for the "light infantry division" when it was sketched out in the 1980s [there was a specific Military Airlift Command figure of 46+20 mtm/d from 1981 involved that has zero basis outside its own narrative reality tbh] are freely available on Google. You can find them yourself, it's literally on the first page of the web results. But given you're constantly quoting Wikipedia like it's some kind of holy tome, I guess if you can't find it on Wikipedia then it's not really a source. I learned that lesson a while ago when I made the mistake of providing you with real sources. C'est la vie. Anyway the point I was getting at was your genius level IQ means if you had any real interest in the matter you should already know this stuff, though, which really proves that you don't have any interest at all in the matter. Alternatively it proves you don't have a genius level IQ (or really an IQ much higher than average) and prefer to focus your efforts on backpedaling and playing semantic games when it would be easier for you to just admit you have no clue what you're talking about, unless you are doing some sort of hyper time wasting exercise, in which case it is silly to continue.

Either way, giving you a real source is a bit of a wasted effort. It's not hard to type four words into Google. It's even less difficult if you actually enjoy reading about that sort of stuff.

Light infantry division objectives for the U.S. military are not the same thing as the definition of light infantry. Light infantry formations exist that don't meet the light infantry division objective of the 1984 division creation program, such as special forces or various other airborne units. I was hoping you would link a source so I could point that out, but instead I'm going to have to do all the work for you. For something apparently so easy, your inability to actually post the link demonstrates the lack of intelligence, or at least interest on your part.

But regardless, here you go. This new york times articles mentions the C-141 500 troop transport figure, although it was later changed to 550. "Light divisions could be moved in 500 flights of Air Force C-141 transports. Heavy divisions require 2,900 flights. The light divisions will be available for missions in Central America or around the Persian Gulf and as reinforcements to the European and Pacific Commands." - [1]"In late 1983, the light division was approved at a strength of 10,220 men (which later grew to more than 11,000 men, requiring about 550 C-141 sorties)." The term light infantry applies to a broad range of units, however the 5 divisions created and reorganized in to the light infantry divisions represent groups intended to be airlifted via 400-550 C-141 sorties. However, the term "light infantry" does not only apply to light infantry divisions.

For example in divisions with stryker brigades there are "light infantry" battalions which support them, and airborne and special forces units are typically light infantry despite not being designed around the 550 C-141 sorties.

[Gallia-]

You constantly try and debate the intricacies of semantics in language without realizing that it has little to do with the conversation at hand

You're the one introducing definitions that have little to do with the conversation.

meaningless pedagogical theory

No.

Rhizomatic theory is the only theory I subscribe to.

An inability to accept new definitions of words

The fact that you cannot follow conversations nor understand that certain conversations use certain definitions of terms isn't really my problem. Only you can fix that.

from infantry back to the 1700's

No is talking about this, well except you. Hm, suspicious.

so to claim that it only refers to units that can be air lifted in 500 sorties from C-141's for example when that only applies to specific light infantry divisions, is more than disingenuous, it's actually wrong.

Nah. If you knew what you were talking about you would know this. You don't. You cover up your massive ignorance with irrelevant tangents I guess.

Light infantry division objectives for the U.S. military are not the same thing as the definition of light infantry.

Nah. They totes are.

I was hoping you would link a source so I could point that out,

Read: So I could use hindsight to protect my fragile ego? You never point anything out concisely and you never really maintain a single topic beyond three sentences. You're either incredibly scatterbrained, to the point of making me look coherent, or you're just blithely ignorant and incapable of solving it.

but instead I'm going to have to do all the work for you.

Good. Exercise your brain so it will grow.

For something apparently so easy,

Actually, something apparently so assumed. One would expect a genius level IQ to know this stuff to the point of not needing to introduce ambiguity because the context is obvious. Guess not. ):

your inability to actually post the link demonstrates the lack of intelligence, or at least interest on your part.

You're right. It sure does.

stuff about starlifters

Interesting that you bring this up only now instead of earlier. It's almost as if I told you to Google it then and there and you produced a handful of results using whatever information I gave you. Hindsight in action?

Perhaps that's why it took you something like three hours of sitting on that post to produce a response to it, though.

However, the term "light infantry" does not only apply to light infantry divisions.

No one cares lol.

For example in divisions with stryker brigades there are "light infantry" battalions which support them, and airborne and special forces units are typically light infantry despite not being designed around the 550 C-141 sorties.

No one cares lol.

Come back when you can think properly and realize that Manticoran Empire was copying a list of stuff from this webpage because his schtick is to copy the Cold War U.S. Army without consideration for the design factors that go into division planning. He even copied the equipment list of an armored division in another post. It's pretty safe to assume, then, that he is using the U.S. Army's definition of "light infantry division" in the 1980s sense. If you cannot understand this then IDK. Read these threads more? When you grok context it all becomes clear; but we know you have difficulty determining what someone means when they say "they put all their cards on the table," so you need to run through thirty different permutations of meaning and start decide to start asking people if you want to play poker in the middle of a boardroom meeting.

You then retreat to recycling ad hominems and pretending that information given to you was actually a unique insight you possessed prior to being told the answer? Possibly.

Either you have serious trouble determining meaning from ambiguity or you deliberately introduce ambiguity in a gambit to win arguments. Both are unfortunate wastes of effort.