Ridiculous things your military does

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

You purchase new clothes but that doesnt happen very often considering my nations biggest threat at this moment is the IED so its either no uniform or a blood stained uniform

Noted. For the record the biggest threat to any infantryman by the way; is another infantryman.

No it isn't. In conventional warfare it is artillery and aircraft, in unconventional warfare, it is either booby traps or infantry.

[Interstellar America]

Noted. For the record the biggest threat to any infantryman by the way; is another infantryman.

No it isn't. In conventional warfare it is artillery and aircraft, in unconventional warfare, it is either booby traps or infantry.

Now I have to kick it off; I have to say what no one else I know on here will say. Take this anyway you want by the way but it's a serious question and not a flame.

Why the fuck do you think you're an authority on every subject on Earth?

[The Merchant Republics]

Our soldiers are encouraged to avariciously pick through the bodies of the dead after a battle for useful technology and weaponry, of course war spoils apply and occasionally infantry take any finery the enemy has on them as well. Useful enemy weapons, armour and technology can be exchanged with the quarter-master for money, though less useful technology usually finds it way to the merchant's tables or kept as an heirloom.

The bodies of the enemy dead are always honourably returned to the enemy fortification. This is unless they fail to do so in reciprocation enough times to offend us (or desecrate them or other such things) and instead we simply airdrop them onto their position with packed explosives for added gross effect.

Almost all fighter, gunship and bomber craft in the Republics are remotely piloted, so if they are damaged they can be piloted into enemy targets as makeshift-missiles. It also means that there is little risk of losing skilled pilots. Perhaps the best feature is that they can be very compactly fit in most vessels so that the Republics can field many more fighters then other nations.

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

No it isn't. In conventional warfare it is artillery and aircraft, in unconventional warfare, it is either booby traps or infantry.

Now I have to kick it off; I have to say what no one else I know on here will say. Take this anyway you want by the way but it's a serious question and not a flame.

Why the fuck do you think you're an authority on every subject on Earth?

Beyond the fact that I don't, crew served weapons like artillery and aircraft have been causing most casualties since WW1. If infantry was the end all to all combat than tanks, artillery, and aircraft would all be worthless, and contrary to how games like CoD portray warfare, tanks and artillery are common and kill many more soldiers in conventional warfare than infantry.

Because as simple logic will tell you, an artillery gun that can fire two rounds a minute that can kill everyone within 50 feet will kill more people than a platoon of soldiers that generally miss.

[Interstellar America]

Now I have to kick it off; I have to say what no one else I know on here will say. Take this anyway you want by the way but it's a serious question and not a flame.

Why the fuck do you think you're an authority on every subject on Earth?

Beyond the fact that I don't, crew served weapons like artillery and aircraft have been causing most casualties since WW1. If infantry was the end all to all combat than tanks, artillery, and aircraft would all be worthless, and contrary to how games like CoD portray warfare, tanks and artillery are common and kill many more soldiers in conventional warfare than infantry.

I never said that they were the end to all combat for the record. And contrary to your opinion not everyone on here gets their limited knowledge basis from games like CoD. Which by the way is one of the reasons I just asked that question for; because you damn sure act like it.

[Interstellar America]

Noted. For the record the biggest threat to any infantryman by the way; is another infantryman.

Generalizations in warfare don't get you very far.

Same can be said for anything quite honestly.

[The Territory]

Using antimatter in infantry weapons.

It's not huge amounts of antimatter, but it powers weapons and gives projectiles a few megajoules for cracking screens and messing up the target. (and the option to "hotload" a projectile for a few hundred megajoules' worth of explosion) Any hit that would cause storage failures would very, very likely kill the soldier carrying it. This is even more likely if the soldier is a full conversion cyborg as military variants tend to carry their main amat store next to their brains.

That last bit is probably considered pretty crazy by some as well.

[Greater United Russia]

Bear. Cavalry.

[Helghast empire]

Beyond the fact that I don't, crew served weapons like artillery and aircraft have been causing most casualties since WW1. If infantry was the end all to all combat than tanks, artillery, and aircraft would all be worthless, and contrary to how games like CoD portray warfare, tanks and artillery are common and kill many more soldiers in conventional warfare than infantry.

I never said that they were the end to all combat for the record. And contrary to your opinion not everyone on here gets their limited knowledge basis from games like CoD. Which by the way is one of the reasons I just asked that question for; because you damn sure act like it.

Just to make it somewhat clear: conventional warfare is using normal infantry, artillery, and any weapons a military would use ( except WMD weapons ), unconventional warfare is when unconventional METHODs are use to fight a war such as gurilla warfare, asymetical warfare tactics and the like. an example of unconventional warfare is insurgents using IEDs because they are not made and used through the true militaries and companies ( conventional weapons ) and because these IEDs are used as guerrilla warfare weapons.

not bragging, not showing off, just telling what it truly is to stop you guys from saying what is right and wrong.

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

Beyond the fact that I don't, crew served weapons like artillery and aircraft have been causing most casualties since WW1. If infantry was the end all to all combat than tanks, artillery, and aircraft would all be worthless, and contrary to how games like CoD portray warfare, tanks and artillery are common and kill many more soldiers in conventional warfare than infantry.

I never said that they were the end to all combat for the record. And contrary to your opinion not everyone on here gets their limited knowledge basis from games like CoD. Which by the way is one of the reasons I just asked that question for; because you damn sure act like it.

Okay, if infantry are cheaper to deploy than crew served weapons, kill more people, and are more mobile, how would they not be the end all to combat? Also, infantry simply don't cause more casualties, an artillery gun can collapse a building, or kill everyone in a 50 meter radius with every shot (guns without autoloaders can fire about 2 rpm sustained), meaning that in a minute a single gun can kill everyone in an area covering 7,850 sq meters, meanwhile a battalion of infantry would be hard pressed to kill soldiers that quickly.

Simply put, in modern warfare, infantry exist to support everything else, while tanks, artillery, and aircraft do most of the killing, unsupported they are useless, and infantry is cheap and mobile enough to support them no matter the terrain.

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

Okay, if infantry are cheaper to deploy than crew served weapons, kill more people, and are more mobile, how would they not be the end all to combat? Also, infantry simply don't cause more casualties, an artillery gun can collapse a building, or kill everyone in a 50 meter radius with every shot (guns without autoloaders can fire about 2 rpm sustained), meaning that in a minute a single gun can kill everyone in an area covering 7,850 sq meters, meanwhile a battalion of infantry would be hard pressed to kill soldiers that quickly.

Simply put, in modern warfare, infantry exist to support everything else, while tanks, artillery, and aircraft do most of the killing, unsupported they are useless, and infantry is cheap and mobile enough to support them no matter the terrain.

Au Contrare ASE, infantry can indeed replace everything else on the modern battlefield. The problem is just a massive increase in casualties as mortars are made to replace howitzers and infantry assaults with grenades replace crew manned weapons and tanks. Numerous doctrines, such as infiltration assault and guerrilla style warfare take advantage of infantries cheapness and superior mobility to destroy forces with more firepower then them in exchange for much higher losses.

Fortunately trenches prevent artillery from wiping out entire infantry formations, but NS combat seems to consider all sorts of fixed defenses to be "obsolete" for whatever reason so it may very well be justified.

That said ASE is a reliably source of information and a reputable critic in F&N (at least as far as you can get before professionals or experienced folk from the draftroom come in), you should give him more credit Interstellar America.

Well yes, certain doctrines rely heavily or completely on infantry, but most modern conventional doctrines have infantry to support tanks and artillery. Also I got some handy info from Wikipedia on the odds of dying when an artillery shell hits based on your position.

* men standing – 1
* men lying – 1/3
* men firing from trenches – 1/15–1/50
* men crouching in trenches – 1/25–1/100
As one can see trenches GREATLY increase survivability from an artillery barrage to the point where bombarding infantry is pretty useless for anything besides suppression as was shown in WW1 with week long artillery bombardments doing little to well dug in positions.

[-Costa Luna-]

Sweat, Time, Rations. @ Trench Costs.

[Santheres]

Sweat, Time, Rations. @ Trench Costs.

All of which are cheap, which was the implication of his post. Time is the most expensive of those.

[-Costa Luna-]

Sweat, Time, Rations. @ Trench Costs.

All of which are cheap, which was the implication of his post. Time is the most expensive of those.

Obviously; merely stating the obvious on my behalf.

[Dystopianus]

That part is something more related to Dystopian culture: in Dystopianus, having sex does not mean you have a relationship. I might explain that another time.

Beyond the fact that they still probably have some natural urge to protect someone they are having sex with (instinctively a man probably would want to protect a woman that could be carrying his child), I think I read that sex lowers testosterone levels.

AFAIK, not really. I thought sexual activity increases testostorone instead. (Or was it the other way around?)

It also reduces stress, so soldiers will keep their cool rather then freaking out after seeing the harsh reality of war.

[Kyraina]

Beyond the fact that they still probably have some natural urge to protect someone they are having sex with (instinctively a man probably would want to protect a woman that could be carrying his child), I think I read that sex lowers testosterone levels.

AFAIK, not really. I thought sexual activity increases testostorone instead. (Or was it the other way around?)

It also reduces stress, so soldiers will keep their cool rather then freaking out after seeing the harsh reality of war.

A soldier will protect his family and his brother in arms anyway and they are trained for that kinda of stuff they see in war (i mean the fighting notthe other stuff) but they need help to deal with it thats where family and friends come in

[Interstellar America]

No amount of training nor relationship can prepare someone for the brutality of the frontlines.

[Tappahannock]

No amount of training nor relationship can prepare someone for the brutality of the frontlines.

True enough. This is why good military training is so harsh, not to prepare you to face the front line and cope, but to help you act even when faced with something no training may prepare you to handle.

[Interstellar America]

No amount of training nor relationship can prepare someone for the brutality of the frontlines.

True enough. This is why good military training is so harsh, not to prepare you to face the front line and cope, but to help you act even when faced with something no training may prepare you to handle.

Indeed indeed.

[Kyraina]

True enough. This is why good military training is so harsh, not to prepare you to face the front line and cope, but to help you act even when faced with something no training may prepare you to handle.

Indeed indeed.

thats why spec ops training and regular training is really really harsh but that cant prepare you for when u kill someone or when ur mind is still in the war

[Interstellar America]

If you feel guilty you shouldn't have signed up. -Shrug.- If your mind is still settled in that period; I believe they call that 'Shell Shock'.

[Kyraina]

If you feel guilty you shouldn't have signed up. -Shrug.- If your mind is still settled in that period; I believe they call that 'Shell Shock'.

just becuase u go in military doesnt mean u will be on the front lines

[Interstellar America]

-Wonders what a u is.-

[Syreene states]

Also, the SGDF regularly issues Hand Grenades filled with LSD and Delirium inducing drugs, as crowd control measures. Experiments with weaponizing THC and the smells of fresh Brownies and Chinese Food were inconclusive.

[Feral Land]

Spend money on marching bands and marshal music...as if that's gonna help in case of war or a good food fight