Infantry Discussion Thread part 11: Gallas Razor edition.

[Copesid]

.303 is plenty good--so much so that it's not worth retooling to .30-06.

Originally I planned on the Copesidite Army and Marines operating domestic produced Mausers chambered in .30-06, Springfields essentially. Then a major war brews in 1923 and they need to rapidly expand their military overseas. They would buy excess equipment leftover from the Great War to fill their equipment needs. Problem is that their were only about 2,000 decent LMGs produced in the .30-06 during the war. The idea was to re-chamber the Lewis guns into the standard .30-06... only that isn't going to happen anymore.

[Copesid]

Which brings me to my next question: Does anybody know a historical (or have tips) on what a infantry division would look like in 1923?

Questions you'll want answered:

What terrain are they fighting in? It has not been entirely hashed out. General consensus at the moment is that it is wooded, suitable for growing cinchona and rubber trees, contains rivers and at least some mountains.

What kind of infrastructure is available? Pretty poor infrastructure, think Chaco War. Few major railroads, no more then two deep water ports dirt roads and narrow gauge rail roads. Major forms of transportation is by water.

Foe being faced? Rival colonial power, tactics OoCly uncertain to me. I suspect he'll use human wave tactics backed by a few tanks.

How far away from the mainland is the war conducted? Undetermined as of this moment. It is just overseas. I do not think it would not be farther then Italy would be from Ethiopia.

Objective of war? Secure disputed territory between rival powers' colonies.

Population? Certainly not a super power. I suppose it would be about the size of France's population at that time x4. Don't question the x4, it isn't leaving anytime soon.

Infantry divisions would be composed of what type of people? Professional along conscripted troops from Copesid and it's overseas province. Everyone is generally speaking well motivated due to the foe being a long time enemy and natives of the province disliking their rule. They would not like them to get any closer to their heartland.

What is the economy like? It is pretty decent for a developed country of the time. Nothing more, nothing less.

War industrial capacity? Let's say fairly significant, about 1/3rd less than France of that period.

[The Manticoran Empire]

Which brings me to my next question: Does anybody know a historical (or have tips) on what a infantry division would look like in 1923?

Questions you'll want answered:

What terrain are they fighting in? It has not been entirely hashed out. General consensus at the moment is that it is wooded, suitable for growing cinchona and rubber trees, contains rivers and at least some mountains.

What kind of infrastructure is available? Pretty poor infrastructure, think Chaco War. Few major railroads, no more then two deep water ports dirt roads and narrow gauge rail roads. Major forms of transportation is by water.

Foe being faced? Rival colonial power, tactics OoCly uncertain to me. I suspect he'll use human wave tactics backed by a few tanks.

How far away from the mainland is the war conducted? Undetermined as of this moment. It is just overseas. I do not think it would not be farther then Italy would be from Ethiopia.

Objective of war? Secure disputed territory between rival powers' colonies.

Population? Certainly not a super power. I suppose it would be about the size of France's population at that time x4. Don't question the x4, it isn't leaving anytime soon.

Infantry divisions would be composed of what type of people? Professional along conscripted troops from Copesid and it's overseas province. Everyone is generally speaking well motivated due to the foe being a long time enemy and natives of the province disliking their rule. They would not like them to get any closer to their heartland.

What is the economy like? It is pretty decent for a developed country of the time. Nothing more, nothing less.

War industrial capacity? Let's say fairly significant, about 1/3rd less than France of that period.

Infantry divisions of the period ranged from about 14,000 to almost 20,000. It really depends, though. In World War 1, divisions were quite large, with about 16,000 in a Russian division, around 18,000 in a British and German division, and 28,000 in an American division (mainly due to a lack of officers in the US Army). By World War 2, the US Army division had dropped to 14,000 men while the British division was 13,600 men in 1939 and 18,000 men in 1944. A German division had about 17,700 men at its largest but rarely went below 15,000 men. Towards the end of the war, German divisions had about 12,500 men. So it can range from as low as 10,000 men to as high as 30,000 men, depending on how you organize it.

[Taihei Tengoku]

Which brings me to my next question: Does anybody know a historical (or have tips) on what a infantry division would look like in 1923?

Questions you'll want answered:

What terrain are they fighting in? It has not been entirely hashed out. General consensus at the moment is that it is wooded, suitable for growing cinchona and rubber trees, contains rivers and at least some mountains.

What kind of infrastructure is available? Pretty poor infrastructure, think Chaco War. Few major railroads, no more then two deep water ports dirt roads and narrow gauge rail roads. Major forms of transportation is by water.

Foe being faced? Rival colonial power, tactics OoCly uncertain to me. I suspect he'll use human wave tactics backed by a few tanks.

How far away from the mainland is the war conducted? Undetermined as of this moment. It is just overseas. I do not think it would not be farther then Italy would be from Ethiopia.

Objective of war? Secure disputed territory between rival powers' colonies.

Population? Certainly not a super power. I suppose it would be about the size of France's population at that time x4. Don't question the x4, it isn't leaving anytime soon.

Infantry divisions would be composed of what type of people? Professional along conscripted troops from Copesid and it's overseas province. Everyone is generally speaking well motivated due to the foe being a long time enemy and natives of the province disliking their rule. They would not like them to get any closer to their heartland.

What is the economy like? It is pretty decent for a developed country of the time. Nothing more, nothing less.

War industrial capacity? Let's say fairly significant, about 1/3rd less than France of that period.

look at the IJA for a manpower-rich, capital-poor division

[Taihei Tengoku]

rah

[Gallia-]

"What Is To Be Done?"

C H T O D E L A T

Also squads sticking 3gether 5ever is probably the most commonsensical thing tbh.

[The Manticoran Empire]

rah

Well training matters a lot more than the number of dudes in a unit, so.

[Techoligia]

rah

Well training matters a lot more than the number of dudes in a unit, so.

Tell that to the Soviet Union.

[The Manticoran Empire]

Well training matters a lot more than the number of dudes in a unit, so.

Tell that to the Soviet Union.

Why? They don't exist anymore.

[Taihei Tengoku]

Well training matters a lot more than the number of dudes in a unit, so.

Tell that to the Soviet Union.

These dudes did:

[Gallia-]

The best dudes.

[Salus Maior]

Tell that to the Soviet Union.

These dudes did:

Where are the ones with the stingers that actually won the war?

[Taihei Tengoku]

I would post a syphilis bacterium but I can't find a suitable picture

[Triplebaconation]

Stingers had negligible military effect in Afghanistan, and certainly didn't influence the Soviet decision to withdraw.

[Manokan Republic]

Training and strategy matters more than numbers, but both sides are weighed. The side with more numbers will win eventually with enough numbers, but will lose so many men in the process they'd need 10's of millions to do so. It's also important to remember that soviet troops were not all untrained and all poorly equipped, with many of them being fairly well equipped, with machine guns and sniper rifles and all kinds of things. The soviets also had among the best tanks and artillery of the war, and very large numbers of them. A bunch of people with machetes would have done worse than the soviet union with at least bolt action rifles, for most of their soldiers.

Defensive positions also matter, like with the Alamo, where 150 defenders killed about 750 people, for a 5 to 1 kill ratio. D-Day showed that even though the Americans would reverse the kill ratio later on, that even a well trained group of men, well equipped and everything, would take heavy casualties if in the wrong set of circumstances. A group of highly trained navy seals might die in a helicopter crash due to some random mistake, even if under ordinary conditions navy seals have a 1 to 200+ kill ratio when compared to the terrorists. Circumstances and training have a big impact on performance, but do not always determine success or failure depending on your numbers and probability. So it's not really either so much as, you are weighing multiple factors.

Training can also be a negative, if trained to do the wrong thing, or if your strategies are bad for example. A well organized force can lose if told to do the wrong thing, a good example being Hannibal vs. the Romans, where hannibal with an army half the size of the romans all but completely obliterated them. So it's more a balance of skill, circumstances, and numbers, as well as effective strategies. Training and skill are force multipliers, which make you more effective than you'd be otherwise, as are certain forms of equipment, and good terrain/defensive positions. A larger force is also a force multiplier since you have more men.

[Manokan Republic]

On another note, one thing I've been thinking about is tactical shields. Although kind of terrible for normal operations, they would be useful in room clearing operations, and possibly at long ranges if you hid behind them like they were cover when you were prone. The U.S. military is designing a robotic suit (TALOS) of a single armored soldier who can enter rooms to serve as a human shield in room clearing operations, but it dawned on me that a tactical shield designed to be taken off and used from your vehicle only in select circumstances might achieve the same effect, as long as the soldier carrying it could fire a decent firearm as well, like a rifle or at least a submachine gun. Pistol slides also tend to catch on the sides of the shields.

One other thing you could do is take the tactical shield off and use it as a barrier when laying prone or hiding behind cover giving you the equivalent of a sandbag mound anywhere you went. This would make it so you could carry it around all the time, and it not just be dead weight except for room clearing operations. Ideally you could fire the gun from inside the shield, as the biggest problems tends to be trying to hold your gun on the side of the tactical shield, thus exposing more of your body. I got the idea from something like this, but you could have it be bigger and sort of, not attached to the gun at all times so the gun isn't tons heavier. A tactical shield doesn't cover the entire body, but would be a lot more useful if laying prone, so if you are out in the middle of the desert or something or a large grass field you have cover you can deploy anywhere when you need it. I suppose you'd wear it on your back, so you would have back armor, and then take it off when you needed it. Ideally when you're not using it as a shield it would fit to your back, or your chest, so while it's heavy it serves as extra armor at all times.

https://specialopsbunker.com/media/2016/03/SOB-Responder-prone-small.jpg

https://www.combatreform.org/gunshieldIMT1.jpg

[The Manticoran Empire]

On another note, one thing I've been thinking about is tactical shields. Although kind of terrible for normal operations, they would be useful in room clearing operations, and possibly at long ranges if you hid behind them like they were cover when you were prone. The U.S. military is designing a robotic suit (TALOS) of a single armored soldier who can enter rooms to serve as a human shield in room clearing operations, but it dawned on me that a tactical shield designed to be taken off and used from your vehicle only in select circumstances might achieve the same effect, as long as the soldier carrying it could fire a decent firearm as well, like a rifle or at least a submachine gun. Pistol slides also tend to catch on the sides of the shields.

One other thing you could do is take the tactical shield off and use it as a barrier when laying prone or hiding behind cover giving you the equivalent of a sandbag mound anywhere you went. This would make it so you could carry it around all the time, and it not just be dead weight except for room clearing operations. Ideally you could fire the gun from inside the shield, as the biggest problems tends to be trying to hold your gun on the side of the tactical shield, thus exposing more of your body. I got the idea from something like this, but you could have it be bigger and sort of, not attached to the gun at all times so the gun isn't tons heavier. A tactical shield doesn't cover the entire body, but would be a lot more useful if laying prone, so if you are out in the middle of the desert or something or a large grass field you have cover you can deploy anywhere when you need it. I suppose you'd wear it on your back, so you would have back armor, and then take it off when you needed it. Ideally when you're not using it as a shield it would fit to your back, or your chest, so while it's heavy it serves as extra armor at all times.

https://specialopsbunker.com/media/2016/03/SOB-Responder-prone-small.jpg

https://www.combatreform.org/gunshieldIMT1.jpg

Most of the stuff from Combat Reform is stupid. Somethings are interesting and plausible but most of it is just not.

[Manokan Republic]

On another note, one thing I've been thinking about is tactical shields. Although kind of terrible for normal operations, they would be useful in room clearing operations, and possibly at long ranges if you hid behind them like they were cover when you were prone. The U.S. military is designing a robotic suit (TALOS) of a single armored soldier who can enter rooms to serve as a human shield in room clearing operations, but it dawned on me that a tactical shield designed to be taken off and used from your vehicle only in select circumstances might achieve the same effect, as long as the soldier carrying it could fire a decent firearm as well, like a rifle or at least a submachine gun. Pistol slides also tend to catch on the sides of the shields.

One other thing you could do is take the tactical shield off and use it as a barrier when laying prone or hiding behind cover giving you the equivalent of a sandbag mound anywhere you went. This would make it so you could carry it around all the time, and it not just be dead weight except for room clearing operations. Ideally you could fire the gun from inside the shield, as the biggest problems tends to be trying to hold your gun on the side of the tactical shield, thus exposing more of your body. I got the idea from something like this, but you could have it be bigger and sort of, not attached to the gun at all times so the gun isn't tons heavier. A tactical shield doesn't cover the entire body, but would be a lot more useful if laying prone, so if you are out in the middle of the desert or something or a large grass field you have cover you can deploy anywhere when you need it. I suppose you'd wear it on your back, so you would have back armor, and then take it off when you needed it. Ideally when you're not using it as a shield it would fit to your back, or your chest, so while it's heavy it serves as extra armor at all times.

https://specialopsbunker.com/media/2016/03/SOB-Responder-prone-small.jpg

https://www.combatreform.org/gunshieldIMT1.jpg

Most of the stuff from Combat Reform is stupid. Somethings are interesting and plausible but most of it is just not.

The idea isn't from combat reform, it's just inspired by the idea. I don't think mounting it to a gun is a good idea, so much as using tactical shields as covers.

The russians tend to use tactical shields a lot, where as Americans do not, and I was commenting on a way to make them more useful. A typical ceramic plate will be about 7 pounds, so mounting one on the end of your gun isn't really the best idea, but laying prone and setting one up is not a bad idea.

[Austrasien]

It would be better to allocate the weight for more body armour. Historically shields went of style as body armour improved. This has not changed really.

[Manokan Republic]

It would be better to allocate the weight for more body armour. Historically shields went of style as body armour improved. This has not changed really.

The advantage is that it's directional. A shield can be pointed in the direction of expected incoming fire, where as for body armor to be effective it needs to cover the whole body. Generally speaking if you're only armored in one direction, you can have better armor than you could otherwise, which is why say, tanks are better armored in the front instead of on the sides. The problem with armoring the whole body is that it would be far too heavy than just armoring one direction which can be a 1/2 or even 1/4 the armor that would be needed; if your kneeling or laying prone, the amount of armor you need is even less. You can also have one soldier carry it while the rest of the soldiers hide behind it. To cover the whole body in say, AR500 steel would be 200 pounds, Dyneema could maybe be 75 pounds (with backing armor, 3.3 pounds per square foot otherwise) which is actually reasonable but it wouldn't stop armor piercing rounds. The other advantage is you can set it down, roll it on wheels etc. and abandon it quickly, where as with body armor it's always on you and is harder to remove in a hurry.

Tactical shields are still widely used by special forces and is normal practices for Russia and many eastern European countries. As well as by police forces and all kinds of people.

[Sevvania]

You don't have to armor the entire body, you cover the important bits, and there are better materials than steel to use for this.

A shield is fine in the context of police/counterterror, but becomes a bit more cumbersome in the context of mainline infantry, because now somebody has to drag or (terrain-permitting) roll a 75 lb slab of steel across the battlefield.

[Manokan Republic]

You don't have to armor the entire body, you cover the important bits, and there are better materials than steel to use for this.

A shield is fine in the context of police/counterterror, but becomes a bit more cumbersome in the context of mainline infantry, because now somebody has to drag or (terrain-permitting) roll a 75 lb slab of steel across the battlefield.

That is correct, which is why I thought it would be more useful if it was designed to be used like say, as cover while the soldier is kneeling/laying prone and such, as opposed to a gigantic shield which is more cumbersome to carry.

Also while armoring the important bits are great, a shield would cover up your entire body in certain directions which is of course still better. I still like the fact that dyneema helmets exist these days which will stop rifle rounds though, like the ECH or AS-600 helmets. A headshot no longer is lethal, and with that most other wounds are treatable, if you avoid the heart, spinal cord or any major vascular area that might bleed a lot. If you were to have stretcher in every APC, like with say the Namer, body armor + immediate medical intervention would result in way higher survival rates.

[Austrasien]

The advantage is that it's directional.

Far more often than not this is a disadvantage. The least dangerous threat is the one a soldier is focused on. If someone shoots and kills a soldier it is probably someone they didn't know was aiming for them.

Compromising protection against unexpected threats for more protection from expected threats is not a worthwhile trade except when attacks from unexpected directions are unlikely. Which might very well be the case in a special forces raid, because intelligence gathering & planning are hallmarks of (successful) special forces missions, but it is not a good description of generalized infantry combat.

[Manokan Republic]

The advantage is that it's directional.

Far more often than not this is a disadvantage. The least dangerous threat is the one a soldier is focused on. If someone shoots and kills a soldier it is probably someone they didn't know was aiming for them.

Compromising protection against unexpected threats for more protection from expected threats is not a worthwhile trade except when attacks from unexpected directions are unlikely. Which might very well be the case in a special forces raid, because intelligence gathering & planning are hallmarks of (successful) special forces missions, but it is not a good description of generalized infantry combat.

Well typically soldiers know the direction of enemy fire, and the idea of being able to wear it on your back and take it off whenever you want it means your back would always be protected at all times when not using it as a shield.

[NeuPolska]

Because soldiers definitely don’t have other things they already carry on their backs

Because all enemy fire always comes from one direction

Because instead of shooting back you want to fumble around for your shield that may not even stop the rounds used by the enemy

Because you want extra weight and bulk while you march or move across terrain