Infantry Discussion Thread part 11: Gallas Razor edition.

[Republic of Penguinian Astronautia]

I say we just issue every infantryman two mortars, 3 flame throwers, and 3 2 kiloton micronukes.

[Gallia-]

atomic TOWs and 140mm nuclear shells for every platoon

shades of 2013 galla

or 1960 USSR i guess

[Tule]

atomic TOWs and 140mm nuclear shells for every platoon

shades of 2013 galla

or 1960 USSR i guess

You know you can do better than that.

127mm nukes. do it.

[The Manticoran Empire]

Micronukes? Are we going Starship Troopers here?

[Taihei Tengoku]

In maneuver warfare the maximum force is exerted at the critical vulnerability to overthrow the enemy's center of gravity.

[Kanugues Wed]

I'm giving my men tank style smoke charge dispensers with 500 ton nukes.

[Gallia-]

atomic TOWs and 140mm nuclear shells for every platoon

shades of 2013 galla

or 1960 USSR i guess

You know you can do better than that.

127mm nukes. do it.

literally speaking you could have m60 pattons shoot 105mm nukes but why would you

140mm is the tank armament of the far future of the 1990s so it makes sense for it to exist as a nuclear round in the far future of atomic warfare

[Republic of Penguinian Astronautia]

Micronukes? Are we going Starship Troopers here?

That was the joke. you have read the book, have you not?!!!

[Manokan Republic]

I say we just issue every infantryman two mortars, 3 flame throwers, and 3 2 kiloton micronukes.

Yeah, but the wickets. You always have to compensate for the wickets.

[The Manticoran Empire]

Micronukes? Are we going Starship Troopers here?

That was the joke. you have read the book, have you not?!!!

I have not only read the book but watched all the films.

[Manokan Republic]

The problem with micronukes though is the chance for your own soldiers getting killed. I always figured sarin nerve gas grenades made more sense, as you can easily have a gas mask and NBC suit and whatnot for your soldiers and it effects a wide area without permanent side effects, unlike say VX gas or nukes. Nuclear protection at the bomb sight itself typically requires something that can block radiation, which basically means lead or something else heavy.

And for starship troopers, using a nerve gas to kill the enemy makes sense since A- they were bugs, right and B- because of Vietnam and agent orange and being political or whatever.

[Manokan Republic]

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.

This right here is exactly the problem. I'm not trying to "win" an argument, I'm trying to have a conversation and talk about things casually. You demand that I use a very specific definition of light infantry, and even more bizarre the word light, when there are numerous definitions for the term "light", even in military usage. Calling something a "lightly armored vehicle" is just fine and common in military vernacular, even back in the 80's. Demanding that I only use the term light from the 1980's which, it wasn't the only way it was used back in the 1980's, just because Manticoran supposedly copied some break down from some unit in the 80's, is beyond silly, and doesn't make sense.

Stop trying to ruin conversations by being shallow and pedantic, tvym. And also the fact you view everything as a competition to be won is an even worse sign for your mental health.

[Tule]

The problem with micronukes though is the chance for your own soldiers getting killed. I always figured sarin nerve gas grenades made more sense, as you can easily have a gas mask and NBC suit and whatnot for your soldiers and it effects a wide area without permanent side effects, unlike say VX gas or nukes. Nuclear protection at the bomb sight itself typically requires something that can block radiation, which basically means lead or something else heavy.

And for starship troopers, using a nerve gas to kill the enemy makes sense since A- they were bugs, right and B- because of Vietnam and agent orange and being political or whatever.

Not necessarily, provided that the bomb is aitburst there is hardly anu fallout worth worrying about.

The primary killing power of micronukes is in the form of prompt radiation. Mounted and dismounted troops alike absorb a massive radiation dose in the first few milliseconds of the explosion, enough to kill them out to a radius of several hundred meters.

When ground bursts do occur the fallout is localised and only acutely hazardous for a day or two, maybe less. Driving rapidly through a fallout contaminated area in an armored vehicle really isn't that dangerous, the US air force used to send manned aircraft through mushroom clouds to collect samples without harming the pilots.

The actual problem with micronukes is proliferation risk and expense. They aren't very cost effective with the introduction of precision guided munitions.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

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.

This right here is exactly the problem. I'm not trying to "win" an argument, I'm trying to have a conversation and talk about things casually. You demand that I use a very specific definition of light infantry, and even more bizarre the word light, when there are numerous definitions for the term "light", even in military usage. Calling something a "lightly armored vehicle" is just fine and common in military vernacular, even back in the 80's. Demanding that I only use the term light from the 1980's which, it wasn't the only way it was used back in the 1980's, just because Manticoran supposedly copied some break down from some unit in the 80's, is beyond silly, and doesn't make sense.

Stop trying to ruin conversations by being shallow and pedantic, tvym. And also the fact you view everything as a competition to be won is an even worse sign for your mental health.

Can you two like idfkn go browse hentai?

[Kampala-]

This right here is exactly the problem. I'm not trying to "win" an argument,

He lied.

irrelevant nonsense

I'm sure this was highly relevant to Manticoran trying to do air mechanization, 1970s style. Nah, you just decided to drop in because you took a random exception to use of a word that was completely irrelevant and succeeded in derailing the conversation. Good job. You win. You should feel happy, you're better at being me than me. :^)

If you want to bring the conversation back around to "air-mechanization" you're more than welcome, though I don't expect someone who enters the conversation with a chip on their shoulder about a non-existent ambiguity to really care about the actual topic of discussion. Perhaps had you entered with a discussion of the merits of tracked locomotion versus wheeled locomotion, such as the offroad "mobiquity" of the Stryker and AIFV being comparable, or the cost of the AIFV being greater than the LAV III, you wouldn't have had a chance to enact your plan to derail the topic, though.

Stop trying to ruin conversations by being shallow and pedantic, tvym.

True pedantry is pointing out that "light infantry" could mean "1700s skirmishers" in a conversation about AIFVs and Strykers, though.

They aren't very cost effective with the introduction of precision guided munitions.

???

They're incredibly useful for attacking area targets and particularly tough things like the Kursk. These are the two things that PGMs are bad at killing.

Obvious battlefield targets for micrconukes would be command posts, field artillery batteries, and tough objects like bridges or tunnels. These are the sort of things that would require multiple PGMs and aircraft or artillery rounds to destroy otherwise, either because they're highly dispersed, hard, or because they comprise a lot of separate but densely packed targets. Micronukes might also be useful for attacking troops in protective cover since they would dramatically reduce the number of rounds needing to be fired to neutralize or suppress a position, which means the guns need to fire for a shorter period of time, which means they are less vulnerable to counterfire, which means they live longer.

That's not terribly communist thincc though. That's more American.

[Tule]

???

They're incredibly useful for attacking area targets and particularly tough things like the Kursk. These are the two things that PGMs are bad at killing.

Obvious battlefield targets for micrconukes would be command posts, field artillery batteries, and tough objects like bridges or tunnels. These are the sort of things that would require multiple PGMs and aircraft or artillery rounds to destroy otherwise, either because they're highly dispersed, hard, or because they comprise a lot of separate but densely packed targets. Micronukes might also be useful for attacking troops in protective cover since they would dramatically reduce the number of rounds needing to be fired to neutralize or suppress a position, which means the guns need to fire for a shorter period of time, which means they are less vulnerable to counterfire, which means they live longer.

That's not terribly communist thincc though. That's more American.

Correct, my bad. I was still thinking in terms of tank shells.

But yeah, nukes are pretty damn good artillery shells, hence why a fuck-ton of them were made and atomic tank shells never were.

[Gallia-]

Atomic tank shells are great for killing defilade platoons.

[Manokan Republic]

You know on the topic of backpack mortars, I've always figured that a recoil reducing system could work out pretty well for such an occasion. For example, the 40mm grenade uses a high to low pressure system to reduce recoil, and the miniman for example uses a hybrid recoilless rifle and low pressure grenade system. It has a 2 pound projectile fired at 160 m/s, which is the same velocity as a 60mm mortar with a 2100 meter range.

Unlike a normal recoilless system, it only has a little bit of backblast, and if combined with a muzzlebreak or other recoil reducing mechanism would be even less. So you actually could fire it at a high angle of fire without a lot of recoil, and have a pretty good range. That or just a high to low pressure system in [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High–low_system#Swedish_use]general[/url].

[Gallia-]

Zero backblast. Low recoil. Ultimate backpack mortar?

[Manokan Republic]

The problem with micronukes though is the chance for your own soldiers getting killed. I always figured sarin nerve gas grenades made more sense, as you can easily have a gas mask and NBC suit and whatnot for your soldiers and it effects a wide area without permanent side effects, unlike say VX gas or nukes. Nuclear protection at the bomb sight itself typically requires something that can block radiation, which basically means lead or something else heavy.

And for starship troopers, using a nerve gas to kill the enemy makes sense since A- they were bugs, right and B- because of Vietnam and agent orange and being political or whatever.

Not necessarily, provided that the bomb is aitburst there is hardly anu fallout worth worrying about.

The primary killing power of micronukes is in the form of prompt radiation. Mounted and dismounted troops alike absorb a massive radiation dose in the first few milliseconds of the explosion, enough to kill them out to a radius of several hundred meters.

When ground bursts do occur the fallout is localised and only acutely hazardous for a day or two, maybe less. Driving rapidly through a fallout contaminated area in an armored vehicle really isn't that dangerous, the US air force used to send manned aircraft through mushroom clouds to collect samples without harming the pilots.

The actual problem with micronukes is proliferation risk and expense. They aren't very cost effective with the introduction of precision guided munitions.

The problem with the fall-out is more so permanently irradiating an area, but the radiation I figure is the biggest problem as you can't protect your soldiers from it. Sarin nerve gas I figure can be protected against via wearing a gas mask and NBC suit, so your own soldiers won't be killed by it. Usually small radiation weapons have too short of a range to be used practically without killing your own troops, like the Davy Crocket missile, so using them at the tactical level would be a problem.

[Manokan Republic]

(Image)

Zero backblast. Low recoil. Ultimate backpack mortar?

Yeah but it only has a range of 400 meters and has a round that's 185 grams with 32 grams of explosive.

On the other hand the mortar I'm thinking about has a range of about 800-2100 meters, and a 900 gram cartridge with about 300-450 grams of explosive in it. Which is quite a bit larger than a standard 40mm grenade, and with a longer range. The simplest answer is just to use a rocket that burns out in mid-air. So a large unguided rocket.

Although a thermobaric grenade angled up at a high angle with a slightly higher velocity, like the 40mm grenade or 25mm grenade might be viable.

[Gallia-]

(Image)

Zero backblast. Low recoil. Ultimate backpack mortar?

Yeah but it only has a range of 400 meters and has a round that's 185 grams with 32 grams of explosive.

You can make it bigger:



4,000 meters at 355 m/s.

[Manokan Republic]

Yeah but it only has a range of 400 meters and has a round that's 185 grams with 32 grams of explosive.

You can make it bigger:

Yeah, but then it's a different weapon. A large grenade launcher could be useful though, which would essentially be the same thing. Also something like an Ex-41 for example.

[Gallia-]

Yeah, but then it's a different weapon.

It's literally a breech loading, brass cased mortar. It's Miniman without the dumb backblast. Unfortunately you would need a baseplate because the original Chinn grenade launcher was mounted on a pivot.

[Purpelia]

I still think a crotch mortar would be better.