Infantry Discussion Thread part 11: Gallas Razor edition.

[Kassaran]

I mean, while I personally think that I want to be as light and mobile as possible while dismounted from my main line of transport as someone technically enlisted in Combat Arms, what do I know. I obviously don't possess the IQ of an internet armchair leet-tier general. Or maybe I've just done a lot of polling and research on my own as to how weight affects me as I run through my drills and exercises and I've determined that I really would rather just have the basics covered and leave my training and statistics to protect me while conducting maneuvers on the battlefield.

I've as of recent been of the mind that infantry really don't need to all be marksmen, sure the US Army probably needs to actually enforce it's 60% accuracy margin for those leaving Basic Combat Training and there probably needs to be more of a focus on the development of soldier skills in garrison, but I honestly feel as though what holds back most soldiers in most armies is just their minds, which is something that holds back most fighters in most militaries the world over. The mind is a powerful engine of perpetuating ones' existence and being able to overcome it's base and primal urges to preserve itself in the face of what might seem like an insurmountable odd is what a soldier should aspire to do.

If you have an army that is mentally indoctrinated and invested into being as capable and flexible as need be, able to handle the adversity and hardship of a truly harrowing and logistically deprived battlefield, you'd have incredible results. Of course soldiers would have to recognize that the standards at which they are expected to fight are not the reality of what they will likely be fighting. For example, while soldiers can be trained to go off of 3-4,000 calories in a combat zone via a single MRE a day, the sustainability of such operations is really quite low and unless you inform your soldiers during the briefings for such trainings as to the expected conditions of the training and what they are going to be preparing themselves for mentally, you'll likely receive some pretty low-performing results.

Something I've recently read about was the need to increase the amount of time during which soldiers in the US Army are expected as of right now to be training under field conditions as opposed to when the United States was in a near constant-war time period (the Post-War Era and the Cold War). As of right now, most soldiers in garrison live the majority of their time outside of field exercises, only receiving about a month or two of combat training and exercise per year. While this is considerably more effective training than most countries can afford to receive, it's still nothing compared to the original quarter-year expectation of the US military and many other militaries of the past. I've probably misquoted the original information or mis-remembered where I read it from, so feel free to correct me on this, but in the end the equipment of your military, while a considerably powerful force multiplier needs to be used to supplement what your soldiers cannot already do.

A soldier can move through buildings and narrow spaces quite agilely to help root out infantry that are hunkered down. They can do this most effectively when provided with ample protection to their front and rear. Having anything more would increase bulk and make their job of clearing out entrenched positions all that more difficult, and where they are not sure they can safely enter a room without taking significant damage from defenders within, they always have grenades to support them. The flashbang, or even high-explosive grenades are highly effective anti-personnel weaponry which Infantry can use to near-fully mitigate the effects if defending forces within a room through either neutralization or area suppression.

For the times that a soldier requires more armor, then they have modular additions that they can make to their armor, through the implementation of the collar and yoke, the side plates, and the deltoid, groin, and kidney protectors. In all, this protection isn't made to stop rounds from firearms, but rather to prevent shrapnel, much like the current generation Advanced Combat Helmet (ACH) fielded by the US Army does. While I only have anecdotes to support me in the following conclusion, these anecdotes come from sources I'd trust as specialists in the field, that being combat medics or those qualified previously as combat medics (68W MOS): additional protection afforded by the groin protector can actually be a negative in combat situations as rounds that catch the protective flap often get carried up and to the side, taking what might be the occasional stray round through a relatively empty space somewhere between the legs, into a critical zone where the hip bone and femoral arteries are. I'm sure Puzikas would have more information on how all this works, but from the general prevalence of this thought from the three or four 68W's I've gotten to work with, this isn't something I'd initially consider to be a battlefield myth or legend.

If a soldier needs to be exceedingly quick, they have individual transportation capabilities, and when they need to carry additional equipment or supplies into a warzone, their mount as in the past, has generally served also as their beast of burden. The best-supplied armies never overburdened their soldiers, but instead utilized extensive supply trains to supplement the immediate strength of their fighting men. To that same measure, I think it's best to invest in creating something that actually operates reliably as the beast of burden and mount for soldiers along the lines of the IFV first. This is why I also believe that most militaries probably will begin investing in simply giving better fire support up front to their forces rather than giving infantry better weaponry. To make something clear, infantry by and large does not mean a specific group or division in the force, but the entirety of the force. With this said, I recognize the need for elite and shock troops to help supplement the conventional fighting ability of a military in specialized terrain. I'm not discounting that these specialized forces are tremendous force multipliers, but I do posit that in the end having a well-rested, and well-trained force of adequate soldiers will always outstrip unconventional forces trained to an elite tier through sheer force of power.

TL;DR: Typically soldiers don't know the direction of enemy fire unless they've specifically seen the enemy firing at them. The most they do is make the snap-decision and hold to it as per their training when responding to direct and indirect contact within any battlefield.

See the events surrounding the attack on SPC Tschiderer here: Gun Camera footage from his would-be assassin.

This is a relatively close-range engagement on a crowded street in Baghdad, admittedly made from great concealment. The sniper had every ability to take down the soldier, but waited for a viable Center of Mass shot. It just so happens, that the Department of Defense has done its research and determined that the CoM is the most vital area to cover and thus have made body armor specifically protecting that from multiple direct blows.

It is more often than not in the battlefield that indeed you get shot from the direction you're not paying attention to. I believe the statistic for most combat pilots shot down in world war 2 was something like 80% that never even saw the enemy that engaged them? The fog of war is huge in a combat zone, it's something we get taught a lot and it's why it's vital that you train everyone to the same standard of being able to hold a defensive line because if your line is broken at any point, it will become a fact that the rest of the line will fall unless you happen to have extremely well-prepared backup or reserves that can quickly move in to plug the line before the breach is exploited.

The idea of wearing anything on my back is also incredibly unappetizing. If I was told that in addition to the camelback for my water, the assault pack for my additional equipment and ammunition, and perhaps even my entrenching tool if I feel a bit Ukrainian that day, I also needed to lug around an additional bullet-proof armor plate, I doubt this would do much to bolster my confidence in my already fairly adequate equipment. If anything I'd feel the need to generally disregard using it unless I managed to take a hit to a main plate and for some reason was still present on the battlefield with the need to replace the armor plate.

[Manokan Republic]

Tactical Shields are widely used by many military's and police forces, so obviously they have a lot of use xD

Soldiers often times do know the direction of fire they will be taking, as unless they are extremely spread out, you are taking fire from the same general direction. When a squad of soldiers bumps in to another squad of soldiers, it isn't that they're spread hundreds of yards apart, but usually clustered in a fairly close range. This makes the ability to stop bullets from one direction rather useful, which is why soldiers take cover behind walls and sand bags. Generally speaking you do know the direction of fire you're taking, and generally it is from the same general direction, although it can be from any direction.

Ideally every direction is protected from, but this isn't really possible in a lot of circumstances. Soldiers aren't walking tanks, so having a shield makes sense instead. If you're arguing that tactical shields are completely insane and stupid, you're a moron, because it's widely used by military's around the world. You often do know the direction of incoming fire, and soldiers are not commonly taken out by snipers, but by regular combat. Be it room clearing or being in the desert usually you are facing the enemy from the same general direction. You can generally predict that a third of your body will be pointed in a certain direction for most of the battle. The question is how to make it more useful in circumstances other than room clearing and general combat to make the weight worth it. 10 pounds would be more reasonable than 30 pounds, and something that's easily worn and deployed is better than something large and bulky. It's also possible that 1 in 4 soldiers have one or that it's carried on the vehicle instead, for optional use. Soft shields exist, but ideally you'd have the protection afforded by armor plates, perhaps broken in to smaller plates like brigadine armor. But the idea that tactical shields are almost completely useless is absurd, as they are already widely used, my goal would be to make it better and more user friendly, like making it easier to hold and fire a gun while you have it, mounting it on the person in such a way to where they perhaps they have two free hands and are firing from inside the shield, and so on.

The question is not if tactical shields are useful, but really how to make them more useful, easier to carry, and more useful in a broader array of situations so it's not just deadweight.

[Sevvania]

[Austrasien]

Tactical Shields are widely used by many military's and police forces, so obviously they have a lot of use xD

Soldiers often times do know the direction of fire they will be taking, as unless they are extremely spread out, you are taking fire from the same general direction. When a squad of soldiers bumps in to another squad of soldiers, it isn't that they're spread hundreds of yards apart, but usually clustered in a fairly close range. This makes the ability to stop bullets from one direction rather useful, which is why soldiers take cover behind walls and sand bags. Generally speaking you do know the direction of fire you're taking, and generally it is from the same general direction, although it can be from any direction.

Ideally every direction is protected from, but this isn't really possible in a lot of circumstances. Soldiers aren't walking tanks, so having a shield makes sense instead. If you're arguing that tactical shields are completely insane and stupid, you're a moron, because it's widely used by military's around the world. You often do know the direction of incoming fire, and soldiers are not commonly taken out by snipers, but by regular combat. Be it room clearing or being in the desert usually you are facing the enemy from the same general direction. You can generally predict that a third of your body will be pointed in a certain direction for most of the battle. The question is how to make it more useful in circumstances other than room clearing and general combat to make the weight worth it. 10 pounds would be more reasonable than 30 pounds, and something that's easily worn and deployed is better than something large and bulky. It's also possible that 1 in 4 soldiers have one or that it's carried on the vehicle instead, for optional use. Soft shields exist, but ideally you'd have the protection afforded by armor plates, perhaps broken in to smaller plates like brigadine armor. But the idea that tactical shields are almost completely useless is absurd, as they are already widely used, my goal would be to make it better and more user friendly, like making it easier to hold and fire a gun while you have it, mounting it on the person in such a way to where they perhaps they have two free hands and are firing from inside the shield, and so on.

The question is not if tactical shields are useful, but really how to make them more useful, easier to carry, and more useful in a broader array of situations so it's not just deadweight.

1. No matter how many times you repeat the falsity, shields are extremely niche forms of personal protective equipment. Even if they are widespread they are vanishingly rare compared to helmets and conventional body armour. Most Russian infantrymen will certainly never carry one into combat.

2. The issue is not the absolute value of shields but their marginal utility - soldiers are constrained by the weight they can physically carry and anything they carry inevitably means less of something else. What you have failed to establish, because it is untrue, is that shields have enough utility that ten pounds of shield is more desirable than ten more pounds of body armour. Even a cursory look at what contemporary soldiers actually wear will confirm that additional body armour is overwhelmingly preferred to a shield when protection is considered somehow inadequate. And historical experience confirms this, as body armour improved through the course of the middle ages the shield receded from being the main personal protective device (alongside the helmet) to a small accessory to vanishing almost entirely.

[Gallia-]

Shield walls but they're boron carbide and the only thing that penetrate them are hollow charge pikes.

Bringing sexy back. #tradlife

[NeuPolska]

People like Manokan are the reason why I experience random violent thoughts

[Taihei Tengoku]

I have no idea why people don't block him.

[The Manticoran Empire]

I have no idea why people don't block him.

Because even bad ideas need to be voiced.

[Taihei Tengoku]

I have no idea why people don't block him.

Because even bad ideas need to be voiced.

Do you know how blocking works?

[The Manticoran Empire]

Because even bad ideas need to be voiced.

Do you know how blocking works?

Not really.

[The Akasha Colony]

I have no idea why people don't block him.

Because even bad ideas need to be voiced.

Blocking means his posts will be collapsed in the normal thread view and you can't see the actual text. It'll just display a small bar between posts that indicates that the blocked person made a post with the option to expand it if desired.

[The Manticoran Empire]

Because even bad ideas need to be voiced.

Blocking means his posts will be collapsed in the normal thread view and you can't see the actual text. It'll just display a small bar between posts that indicates that the blocked person made a post with the option to expand it if desired.

Oh.

[Spirit of Hope]

Tactical Shields are widely used by many military's and police forces, so obviously they have a lot of use xD

Shields are widely used by police forces, they are not so widely used by military forces, though they do see some use under specific circumstances.

Unlike soldiers police have the benefit of being driven, in some cases literally, to the front door of the building they are going to be operating in, and they are not expected to be operating on their feet for hours (or days) on there feet. This means they can carry more and heavier equipment because they are not as worried about endurance in the same way and they don't have to carry other materials (like multiple days worth of food) at the same time.

Police also generally don't have to worry about the same types of threats as soldiers do, soldiers have to worry about grenades and artillery where a shield will be of little use (you are going to have a hard time predicting where those are going to land around you, even if the shield would stop the danger). While police are generally facing hand held small arms, and more often than not only pistols. Shields are ideal suited for stopping those types of threats.

Police often operate in a much more rural and controlled environment than soldiers, which means that there is a much smaller chance of being engaged from an unexpected direction. Police are raiding an individual building, often with knowledge before hand of the buildings design. This means police are much better able to predict which direction a threat is likely to come from.

Finally (as I'm thinking this off the top of my head, there very well may be other points) police almost always operate with overwhelming fire power. While using a shield you can't even operate a pistol very effectively, which doesn't matter as much if you know you are going to outnumber, outgun and have better training than your opposition (almost guaranteed for police). In a purely squad on squad military environment that isn't the case, you need all of the fire power you can get.

Soldiers often times do know the direction of fire they will be taking, as unless they are extremely spread out, you are taking fire from the same general direction. When a squad of soldiers bumps in to another squad of soldiers, it isn't that they're spread hundreds of yards apart, but usually clustered in a fairly close range. This makes the ability to stop bullets from one direction rather useful, which is why soldiers take cover behind walls and sand bags. Generally speaking you do know the direction of fire you're taking, and generally it is from the same general direction, although it can be from any direction.

Yes you generally know the direction you are taking fire from, after the fire starts. For the first initial shots however you will have very little idea. Which means your shield will be badly positioned, and then after those initial shots both sides are going to start trying to maneuver to gain an advantage which will make your shields remaining in the correct position even harder.

A wall, or any other object, that you take cover behind is going to be much larger than any shield you can carry, and will most likely help with that maneuvering to a new position to gain the advantage on your enemy.

Additionally there is the problem of concealment vs. cover. Cover is stuff that stops bullets, concealment is stuff that keeps you from being seen. You ideally want both. A bush gives you concealment not cover, a shield gives you cover but not concealment. Both are not as good as a wall, ditch, tree, etc that gives you both. Not having concealment means the enemy can continue to target you, they may have weapons (high caliber or explosive) that can deal with a shield. They may simply out flank it because they know where it is.

Ideally every direction is protected from, but this isn't really possible in a lot of circumstances. Soldiers aren't walking tanks, so having a shield makes sense instead.

The problem is that shields cover a lot of useless area. If I stand behind a shield there is a lot of area the shield is protecting that doesn't need to be protected. So while I am in theory better protected from the direction of fire I am carrying a lot more weight to do it. I can cover the vital portions of my body (head, torso, groin) for less weight to the same standards. I will most likely survive a hit anywhere else on my body if I get rapid care. Plus it leaves me able to use both my hands.

If you're arguing that tactical shields are completely insane and stupid, you're a moron, because it's widely used by military's around the world.

The problem is you almost never see main line infantry using them, instead you see special forces using them sometimes in special circumstances, largely when there operations look much more like police operations (short time frame, overwhelming firepower and numbers, urban terrain with foreknowledge, etc.)

You often do know the direction of incoming fire, and soldiers are not commonly taken out by snipers, but by regular combat.

Most often soldiers are taken out by artillery and explosive weapons, which as already noted a shield isn't going to do much against.

Be it room clearing or being in the desert usually you are facing the enemy from the same general direction. You can generally predict that a third of your body will be pointed in a certain direction for most of the battle.

Not really.I mean I may know vaguely north of me, but speaking from experience in training exercises you don't know with enough precision where an enemy will open fire from to really get a good benefit out of a shield.

The question is how to make it more useful in circumstances other than room clearing and general combat to make the weight worth it. 10 pounds would be more reasonable than 30 pounds, and something that's easily worn and deployed is better than something large and bulky. It's also possible that 1 in 4 soldiers have one or that it's carried on the vehicle instead, for optional use. Soft shields exist, but ideally you'd have the protection afforded by armor plates, perhaps broken in to smaller plates like brigadine armor. But the idea that tactical shields are almost completely useless is absurd, as they are already widely used, my goal would be to make it better and more user friendly, like making it easier to hold and fire a gun while you have it, mounting it on the person in such a way to where they perhaps they have two free hands and are firing from inside the shield, and so on.

If 1 in 4 is carrying a shield then 1 in 4 isn't carrying a rifle. A shield that doesn't require your hands exists, it's called a trauma plate, and they fit in nice chest rigs to keep them in place.

The question is not if tactical shields are useful, but really how to make them more useful, easier to carry, and more useful in a broader array of situations so it's not just deadweight.

Until the problems with shields (largely weight and the taking up a hand to use) are developed away the shield is not going to have much use outside of socialized operations.

Shield walls but they're boron carbide and the only thing that penetrate them are hollow charge pikes.

Bringing sexy back. #tradlife

I'd buy that book.

[Maori Empire]

Just here showcasing my coconut-fiber armored soldiers with shark tooth swords.

[Parcia]

Just here showcasing my coconut-fiber armored soldiers with shark tooth swords.
(Image)

That is both the weirdest and most terrifying shit I'v seen a human being wear.

[Tule]

It literally says that women's G-tolerance when controlling for height is worse than men's, and that "if the height difference between men and women were eliminated, the g-tolerance of women would be lower". They weigh less generally, and there are "unspecified factors" that reduce their g-tolerance, too. Males on average are taller than females I guess but male fighter pilots are fairly short anyway (5' 6" or so I think is average?) so it's not a big deal, and males are heavier than females, so again not a big deal. Being heavier is a big deal for ejection seats since they will literally kill smaller females (and tiny males).

This all sounds like a problem with the airframe and not women.
Make smaller cockpits and different ejection seats and the problem goes away.

[Gallia-]

It literally says that women's G-tolerance when controlling for height is worse than men's, and that "if the height difference between men and women were eliminated, the g-tolerance of women would be lower". They weigh less generally, and there are "unspecified factors" that reduce their g-tolerance, too. Males on average are taller than females I guess but male fighter pilots are fairly short anyway (5' 6" or so I think is average?) so it's not a big deal, and males are heavier than females, so again not a big deal. Being heavier is a big deal for ejection seats since they will literally kill smaller females (and tiny males).

This all sounds like a problem with the airframe and not women.
Make smaller cockpits and different ejection seats and the problem goes away.

Better solution: Make aircraft for males. If the average female can't meet a standard that selects for average males, that's no more a problem than over representation of blacks in the NFL or NBA. Seeing it as a problem is the real problem, and a exceptionally dangerous and pernicious one at that. For the same reason that various white/Asian ethnic groups are under-represented compared to blacks in American professional sports, females are under-represented in the military. It's a natural result of selecting for certain phenotypes such as musculature, physical endurance, and stamina, which females lack comparatively to males. Shocking. Some people are taller than others, and this makes them better at basketball or some people are more muscular or better runners than other people, and this makes them better at football, or baseball, or whatever.

A sedentary, 38 year old, 300 lbs, competent network security specialist will not be good at being a linebacker on the Packers. Nor will he be a good combat infantryman. He is probably too old and has arthritic knees that prevent him from being very fast at running and even if he loses the weight he will not have much endurance. There is nothing wrong with this. Trying to fit round people into square holes by filing off the corners of the hole is bad and dangerous policy for anything. Eschewing the concept of "discovering what individuals are good at and guiding them towards things their talents apply" in favor of "you can do anything" is just pedagogical and intellectual laziness, TBH.

It's more important to see who is a round peg and who is a square peg and putting them in holes that they fit into, but this obviously requires more work, and in an age of intellectual laziness I guess it's not as quotable as soundbites.

I'm literally too small to be a fighter pilot IRL. I'm literally too small to be a tank driver or a mechanized infantryman. I'm just barely large enough to be a sailor, sometimes, depending on how much water I drank in the past hour or how much it rains. This does not impact my life as much as you might think. Why would it impact the life of any female who is of similar height/size to myself, but even less muscular? It wouldn't. You find something else to do. I would be unhappy to see an exception made for people my size to push through an arbitrary agenda to achieve self-actualization because the idea of being "speshul" without having done anything to deserve it is anathema to my sense of self, and I suspect to everyone else's, because it feels unfair to people who worked hard without special privilege.

Egalitarianism isn't defined as "everyone can do everything regardless of ability", but rather "everyone can do anything if they have the ability". Unfortunately, the former definition is slowly overtaking the latter.

[Prosorusiya]

So what are people’s thoughts on the best SMGs? I must admit I am surprised at how heavy a lot of the old SMGs like the M3 “Grease gun” actually weigh... in the 8-9lb range same as AKM ect.

The M1/M2 are great light little carbines, seem to straddle the gap between SMG & carbine nicely... what would you guys say it is? SMG, Assault Rifle, or something in-between?

I feel like there are so many cool SMGs & Machine Pistols out there other than the usual M-16/AK assault rifles people tend to use in their rp-ing and it would be neat to see someone do a good list of them for new player reference. Would people be willing to contribute to\review such a write up?

[Taihei Tengoku]

Skorpion ダヨ！

[Gallia-]

It's Klobberin' time.

[Misthas]

Skorpion ダヨ！
(Image)

wut.

[Prosorusiya]

How could I forget Skorpian-chan ? Though it makes me wonder now wether the Skorpian or the Stechkin is the better weapon for their role?

As far as the modern era goes SMGs have only a couple things going for them, with some subguns/machine pistols being more compact being one of them... lesser penetration which can be good or bad depending on the use, and for geurilla groups or countries wanting to build last ditch/export guns they are fairly simple to build. And I want to say blow back is better for over the beach Guns? Other than that they are obscellsent compared with AR carbines. Any other niches you guys can think for SMGs?

[Maori Empire]

Skorpion ダヨ！
(Image)

Anime girls still can't top my pacific coconut troopers.

Just kidding, really. The Romans would probably make quick work of my army faster than you can say "Et tu, Brute?". I would say a Los Angeles street gang, but I reckon my Maoris having the edge discipline and numbers, plus intimidation tactics like hakas and death whistle would mean the gangsters would probably shit themselves, take down a dozen with their cheap pawn shop gats and then run for their lives.

[Gallia-]

Haka isn't "terrifying" to a modern Westerner. It's closer to an exotic sexual/erotic display or exaggerated mating dance I suppose.

[Sevvania]

The M1/M2 are great light little carbines, seem to straddle the gap between SMG & carbine nicely... what would you guys say it is? SMG, Assault Rifle, or something in-between?

M2 is my go-to examples of how subjective and nebulous small arms classifications can be. M2 is a carbine (short rifle), SMG (automatic pistol caliber), PDW (SMG/carbine hybrid), or assault rifle ("intermediate", select-fire) depending on how you want to look at it.