Choose your poison:
95gr .277"
vs
75gr .240"
Is this squad layout feasible:
Palmyrian Squad (w/o vehicles)
-Squad Leader
-Fireteam Alpha
-Rifleman
-Rifleman
-Rifleman
-Rifleman
-Rifleman
-Rifleman
Advertisement
by Palmyrion » Tue Dec 29, 2015 9:27 pm
by Fordorsia » Tue Dec 29, 2015 9:29 pm
San-Silvacian wrote:Forgot to take off my Rhodie shorts when I went to sleep.
Woke up in bitches and enemy combatants.
Crookfur wrote:Speak for yourself, Crookfur infantry enjoy the sheer uber high speed low drag operator nature of their tactical woad
Spreewerke wrote:One of our employees ate a raw kidney and a raw liver and the only powers he gained was the ability to summon a massive hospital bill.
Premislyd wrote:This is probably the best thing somebody has ever spammed.
Puzikas wrote:That joke was so dark it has to smile to be seen at night.
by Gallia- » Tue Dec 29, 2015 9:33 pm
by Fordorsia » Tue Dec 29, 2015 9:34 pm
San-Silvacian wrote:Forgot to take off my Rhodie shorts when I went to sleep.
Woke up in bitches and enemy combatants.
Crookfur wrote:Speak for yourself, Crookfur infantry enjoy the sheer uber high speed low drag operator nature of their tactical woad
Spreewerke wrote:One of our employees ate a raw kidney and a raw liver and the only powers he gained was the ability to summon a massive hospital bill.
Premislyd wrote:This is probably the best thing somebody has ever spammed.
Puzikas wrote:That joke was so dark it has to smile to be seen at night.
by Vortukia » Tue Dec 29, 2015 9:35 pm
Rhodesialund wrote:Vortukia wrote:So to answer your question you can't build your structure asymmetrically, you can build your military to fight a asymmetric war, which would involve making them suited to fighting a nation much bigger and stronger, or much smaller.
In my advice, go with all three. Make a balanced force to fight conventionally on a equal power, a ranger-esq variety to fight away from supplies, communication and against a larger threat, and a counter-insurgency to fight the guerrilla.
Best of luck, and if you need help writing, shoot me a telgram.
Speaking of, how would one build a military suited for such a strategy using a balanced force?
by Taihei Tengoku » Tue Dec 29, 2015 9:38 pm
Vortukia wrote:Rhodesialund wrote:
Speaking of, how would one build a military suited for such a strategy using a balanced force?
Well you need to balance what you make.
First off your ratio should be more or less lopsided in the fact of your general main body, as they can do basic asymmetric warfare, but wont be designed purely for it.
Build your basic force first, then your strategy around it, although it's better in the long term if you can handle it to build the strategy, and doctrine first then design your military after it. Then build your 'wings' to deal with both sides of the asymmetric scale. Building a military for a balanced war should be a majority of your conventional forces, while a minority designed for one end, and the other end of the spectrum.
by Dostanuot Loj » Tue Dec 29, 2015 9:42 pm
Kazarogkai wrote:Dostanuot Loj wrote:Notional HK section.
Section Leader: HK33
- Gunner: HK23/21E
- Assistant Gunner: HK33
Team Leader: HK33
- Grenadier: HK33TGS
- Auto Rifleman: HK13
- Rifleman: HK33
Team Leader: HK33
- Grenadier: HK33TGS
- Auto Rifleman: HK13
- Rifleman: HK33
11 men. The section has four magnified optics and seven unmagnified optics issued. Both HK33TGS have the underslung HK79 40mm (That's what TGS means). Gunner's HK23 has the kit at platoon level to convert to 7.62mm, otherwise all section weapons are 5.56mm. Platoon weapons squad has two more HK21E teams, and a 60mm mortar team. Charlie G's available at company level to the platoons.
Saturdays: I work them. :Sadface:
Where is the driver? Unless you delegate your transport from some designated motor pool assigned up above then never mind.
by Vortukia » Tue Dec 29, 2015 9:43 pm
Taihei Tengoku wrote:Vortukia wrote:Well you need to balance what you make.
First off your ratio should be more or less lopsided in the fact of your general main body, as they can do basic asymmetric warfare, but wont be designed purely for it.
Build your basic force first, then your strategy around it, although it's better in the long term if you can handle it to build the strategy, and doctrine first then design your military after it. Then build your 'wings' to deal with both sides of the asymmetric scale. Building a military for a balanced war should be a majority of your conventional forces, while a minority designed for one end, and the other end of the spectrum.
These words don't make much sense in combination. Shouldn't requirements drive composition and not the other way around?
by Sevvania » Tue Dec 29, 2015 10:05 pm
Fordorsia wrote:If everyone is done, I tacticooled 1906
by Eclixia » Tue Dec 29, 2015 10:13 pm
by Spirit of Hope » Tue Dec 29, 2015 10:17 pm
Eclixia wrote:Are flamethrowers actually helpful on the battlefield or just there for awesomeness? (Modern Tech)
Imperializt Russia wrote:Support biblical marriage! One SoH and as many wives and sex slaves as he can afford!
by Vortukia » Tue Dec 29, 2015 10:20 pm
Spirit of Hope wrote:Eclixia wrote:Are flamethrowers actually helpful on the battlefield or just there for awesomeness? (Modern Tech)
On the modern battlefeild they have basically no uses, they were a very niche weapon to begin with. The development of of reconciles rifles, man portable rockets, and missiles really got rid of their remaining utility. Especially with the development of thermobaric warheads.
by Spirit of Hope » Tue Dec 29, 2015 10:28 pm
Vortukia wrote:Spirit of Hope wrote:
On the modern battlefeild they have basically no uses, they were a very niche weapon to begin with. The development of of reconciles rifles, man portable rockets, and missiles really got rid of their remaining utility. Especially with the development of thermobaric warheads.
Well not SO MUCH the case, yes with modern weapons the idea of a man portable fire projectable device more or less got phased out but still has SOME uses. Using a grenade may not always be the case to clear out say a room, or shooting a explosive. Maybe thick walling, and a grenade net. Those are just two possibilities.
Urban warfare while although a flamethrower may not be your preferred choice still has it's niche, not to mention setting aflame flammable buildings a enemy may be hiding in, or also a fear factor.
Imperializt Russia wrote:Support biblical marriage! One SoH and as many wives and sex slaves as he can afford!
by Aqizithiuda » Tue Dec 29, 2015 10:29 pm
Palmyrion wrote:Aqizithiuda wrote:
Smaller than an GPC, larger than a PDW round. You know, just like the rounds Puz suggested.
Choose your poison:
95gr .277"
vs
75gr .240"
Is this squad layout feasible:
Palmyrian Squad (w/o vehicles)
-Squad Leader
-Fireteam Alpha-Designated Marksman-Fireteam Bravo
-Rifleman
-Rifleman-SAW gunner-Fireteam Charlie
-Rifleman
-Rifleman-Grenadier
-Rifleman
-Rifleman
Nationstatelandsville wrote:I liked the prostitute - never quote me on that.
Puzikas wrote:This is beyond condom on toes. This is full on Bra-on-balls.
Puzikas wrote:Im not cheep-You can quote me on that.
Hellraiser-Army wrote:and clearly I am surrounded by idiots who never looked at a blueprint before...
by Padnak » Tue Dec 29, 2015 10:33 pm
Inquilabstan wrote:It is official now. Padnak is really Cobra Commander.
Bezombia wrote:It was about this time that Padnak slowly realized that the thread he thought was about gaming was, in fact, an eight story tall crustacean from the protozoic era.
Husseinarti wrote:Powered Borscht.
Because cosmonauts should never think that even in the depths of space they are free from the Soviet Union.
The Kievan People wrote:As usual, this is Padnak's fault, but we need to move on.
Immoren wrote:Again we've sexual tension that can be cut with a bowie.
by Vortukia » Tue Dec 29, 2015 10:34 pm
Spirit of Hope wrote:Vortukia wrote:
Well not SO MUCH the case, yes with modern weapons the idea of a man portable fire projectable device more or less got phased out but still has SOME uses. Using a grenade may not always be the case to clear out say a room, or shooting a explosive. Maybe thick walling, and a grenade net. Those are just two possibilities.
Urban warfare while although a flamethrower may not be your preferred choice still has it's niche, not to mention setting aflame flammable buildings a enemy may be hiding in, or also a fear factor.
Grenades aren't what did the flame thrower in, rockets are. Rockets are harder to defend against and have a much further range than a flamethrower. Worried about the potential of bunkers? Issue a LAW to every man in the squad. With thermobaric warheads the ability to destroy bunkers, or other prime flame thrower targets, at range has become easier.
At the same time the rocket has more versatility, change out the warhead and it can take out light armored vehicles. Change the warhead again and it can be firing pure HE against enemy infantry.
Even in urban ops you are rarely at such ranges that the flamethrower is going to be in range for your average engagement. Give him an RPG-7 and he can chew through any targets worthy of a flamethrower.
Sure setting someone on fire is scary, but good troops aren't going to get scared enough to get pushed out of their position just by that, especially if they know how to defend against the flamethrower.
by Padnak » Tue Dec 29, 2015 10:38 pm
Inquilabstan wrote:It is official now. Padnak is really Cobra Commander.
Bezombia wrote:It was about this time that Padnak slowly realized that the thread he thought was about gaming was, in fact, an eight story tall crustacean from the protozoic era.
Husseinarti wrote:Powered Borscht.
Because cosmonauts should never think that even in the depths of space they are free from the Soviet Union.
The Kievan People wrote:As usual, this is Padnak's fault, but we need to move on.
Immoren wrote:Again we've sexual tension that can be cut with a bowie.
by Vortukia » Tue Dec 29, 2015 10:39 pm
Padnak wrote:The only reason to use flamethrowers in MT is for aesthetic reasons; Some of my combat engineers are equipped with RPO-50s because I love idea of crazed government forces burning down villages with flamethrowers and general flamethrower usage to clear traps and caves in the jungle, not because flamethrowers are remotely practical
by Rhodesialund » Tue Dec 29, 2015 10:43 pm
Vortukia wrote:Example; If part of your core economic-military relation strategy is cheap affordable armor, so you can mass produce it like McDonalds does fries. You don't want to build your armor before hand, because it may come up to being incredibly expensive and counter productive. If you do the strategy first then plan your armor tank with that in mind you can make a reasonably efficient asset, that compliments your strategy and fits your basic needs.
That's NOT to say you can't have that super fancy M1 Abraham sitting in the depo too, it just means your not mass producing them.
by Spirit of Hope » Tue Dec 29, 2015 11:10 pm
Vortukia wrote:Spirit of Hope wrote:
Grenades aren't what did the flame thrower in, rockets are. Rockets are harder to defend against and have a much further range than a flamethrower. Worried about the potential of bunkers? Issue a LAW to every man in the squad. With thermobaric warheads the ability to destroy bunkers, or other prime flame thrower targets, at range has become easier.
At the same time the rocket has more versatility, change out the warhead and it can take out light armored vehicles. Change the warhead again and it can be firing pure HE against enemy infantry.
Even in urban ops you are rarely at such ranges that the flamethrower is going to be in range for your average engagement. Give him an RPG-7 and he can chew through any targets worthy of a flamethrower.
Sure setting someone on fire is scary, but good troops aren't going to get scared enough to get pushed out of their position just by that, especially if they know how to defend against the flamethrower.
Civilians would, and many troops would very much get scared of seeing their buddy on fire. Know what one of the worst ways to die?
It's fire, it's slow, and painful burning away your flesh and boiling your blood until you're a husk of scab loosely attached to remnants of tendons and dried out bone. Unfortunately soldiers aren't just statues, they are affected by what they see, they get scared and they loose composure. It's a human element that can't be rooted out, hell it's a species element. Self-Preservation, seeing people get burned is a part of that.
Issuing a LAW may be more expensive in the long run, then giving a flamethrower to a designated unit, or even attached to a weapon. It's fast, and it's easy, plus it can be used in places a law can't. A LAW can't go around walls, but you can shoot a flamethrower in a vent, and smoke, or even if the vent is short enough burn out your opponent.
Flamethrowers have uses, maybe not as much as they used to. But their heyday isn't going away any time soon.
Imperializt Russia wrote:Support biblical marriage! One SoH and as many wives and sex slaves as he can afford!
by Vortukia » Tue Dec 29, 2015 11:29 pm
Spirit of Hope wrote:Vortukia wrote:Civilians would, and many troops would very much get scared of seeing their buddy on fire. Know what one of the worst ways to die?
It's fire, it's slow, and painful burning away your flesh and boiling your blood until you're a husk of scab loosely attached to remnants of tendons and dried out bone. Unfortunately soldiers aren't just statues, they are affected by what they see, they get scared and they loose composure. It's a human element that can't be rooted out, hell it's a species element. Self-Preservation, seeing people get burned is a part of that.
Issuing a LAW may be more expensive in the long run, then giving a flamethrower to a designated unit, or even attached to a weapon. It's fast, and it's easy, plus it can be used in places a law can't. A LAW can't go around walls, but you can shoot a flamethrower in a vent, and smoke, or even if the vent is short enough burn out your opponent.
Flamethrowers have uses, maybe not as much as they used to. But their heyday isn't going away any time soon.
Flame throwers hayday is in the past.
Yes flamethrowers are scary, but not enough that well trained troops are going to just run away from them. To get close enough to use a flamethrower you have to be well within the enemies rifles and machineguns, and good troops will use that range advantage to make mincemeat of any flamethrowers. To use the flamethrower you must outmaneuver your opponents forces, and if you are doing that you would be able to push them back without it, it only makes your job a little easier.
Want to know what makes your job even easier? A LAW, or other rocket weapon. Trooper sees a bunker, pulls out his LAW and fires. Or calls for the platoon/company rocket/AT team who hit the bunker with their weapons.
Are LAW's potentially more expensive than a flamethrower? Only minimally, a flamethrower soldier requires completely different training from a regular rifleman, while the use of a LAW can be taught to every rifleman. Plus again, versatility. You probably want to issuing LAW's anyways because they can be used against armored vehicles, and helicopters. Where as a flamethrower can't really engage either of those.
You basically need to have the rocket weapons (LAW, AT-4, RPG-7) around anyways, and they will take out the bunker, or other fortified structure, more easily than the flamethrower. So why issue the flamethrower?
There are very few situations where a flamethrower is going to be able to provide capability some other weapons system you already have can't replace it.
by Vortukia » Tue Dec 29, 2015 11:38 pm
Estovnia wrote:no you're just spreading false, misguided information so pls stop
Advertisement
Return to Factbooks and National Information
Users browsing this forum: Marquesan
Advertisement