NS Military Realism Consultancy Thread Mk X Purps Safe Space

[Gallia-]

i genuinely think the only reason the British army phased out the Vickers was because they were switching from .303 to 7.62mm NATO and the treasury were too cheap to pay to convert them.

Oh ffs Britain even the entirely rekt Western German rump state managed to mod their MG42's for 7.62...

Entire rekt West Germany was also facing an existential crisis on its border.

Britain would have probably just surrendered the instant the Soviets drove over the border and discussed England's role in the Soviet domination of Europe.

[Laritaia]

i genuinely think the only reason the British army phased out the Vickers was because they were switching from .303 to 7.62mm NATO and the treasury were too cheap to pay to convert them.

Oh ffs Britain even the entirely rekt Western German rump state managed to mod their MG42's for 7.62...

The MG3 was new production, but that's besides the point

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

Yes, some Ukrainians used 130 year old maxim guns in Donbass. And rebels in Syria were also spotted with an early 19th century breech loaded cannon. That doesn't mean there not both hopelessly obsolete. You might as well argue that the T-34 or Mig-19 isn't obsolete because the Norks still have a few in service or that the lee-enfield is a perfectly viable modern service rifle because the Taliban occasionally still issue them.

[Gallia-]

Yes, some Ukrainians

The Ukrainian Army, in fact. Not "random militias" or whatever.

You might as well argue that the T-34 or Mig-19 isn't obsolete

What a stupid argument.

Firearms do not age on the same level as advanced weapons like tanks or aircraft. That is a simple fact. A machine gun is a machine gun and a water cooled machine gun has known advantages and disadvantages. Its advantages are its ability to have long-duration sustained fire and its disadvantages are its weight and bulk. For a modern mechanized army, transporting adequate quantities of water and the guns themselves is absolutely piss easy. They provide also more firepower than an air-cooled weapon for a longer period.

Whether they're useful or not is actually somewhat of an open question.

or that the lee-enfield is a perfectly viable modern service rifle

What if I told you you weren't wrong, though?

Not as a service rifle, but as a marksman's rifle.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Yes, some Ukrainians used 130 year old maxim guns in Donbass. And rebels in Syria were also spotted with an early 19th century breech loaded cannon. That doesn't mean there not both hopelessly obsolete. You might as well argue that the T-34 or Mig-19 isn't obsolete because the Norks still have a few in service or that the lee-enfield is a perfectly viable modern service rifle because the Taliban occasionally still issue them.

Unlike MiG-19's or T-34's we haven't changed the way of spewing lead at 600 rpm at our enemies substantially since 1900 AD.

lee-enfield is a perfectly viable modern service rifle

If it's good enough for Who Dares Wins...

[Federated Kingdom of Prussia]

Rotational policies do the opposite of what you imply. They improve soldiers' individual mental health and fitness at the expense of their organization's ability.

This is specifically the part that I'm interested in. I assume you mean that mental health was improved because they get out of Vietnam faster than waiting for their entire unit to leave. But wouldn't it be better for mental health to stick with the unit you've formed such close ties with, through an average draftee's time? Here's the exact quote I referenced, from page 61:

The individual (as contrasted to unit) rotation policy practiced in Vietnam, which moved individual men in and out of combat units on a preordained time schedule, systematically destroyed the unit cohesion of combat groups. Very, very few Vietnam veterans went over with the unit they had trained with, fought with that unit, and returned "to the world" with it.... By contrast, my impression is that this was the majority experience in World War II, particularly in the Pacific. Even men who went over as individual replacements in World War II spend weeks or months with their units after fighting ended and universally returned by boat. "The long trip home" is generally credited as an opportunity for mutual support and communal reworking of combat trauma.

[Gallia-]

Rotational policies do the opposite of what you imply. They improve soldiers' individual mental health and fitness at the expense of their organization's ability.

This is specifically the part that I'm interested in. I assume you mean that mental health was improved because they get out of Vietnam faster than waiting for their entire unit to leave. But wouldn't it be better for mental health to stick with the unit you've formed such close ties with, through an average draftee's time? Here's the exact quote I referenced, from page 61:

The individual (as contrasted to unit) rotation policy practiced in Vietnam, which moved individual men in and out of combat units on a preordained time schedule, systematically destroyed the unit cohesion of combat groups. Very, very few Vietnam veterans went over with the unit they had trained with, fought with that unit, and returned "to the world" with it.... By contrast, my impression is that this was the majority experience in World War II, particularly in the Pacific. Even men who went over as individual replacements in World War II spend weeks or months with their units after fighting ended and universally returned by boat. "The long trip home" is generally credited as an opportunity for mutual support and communal reworking of combat trauma.

He says nothing about individual morale and says that the rotation policy damaged unit cohesion. This is correct and accurate.

Everything else is meaningless and something a rotation policy isn't going to fix. WW2 is a great example, though. The rotation policy was implemented because individual soldiers were literally fought to the breaking point and then some in WW2, because unit rotation policies were inadequate. Instead, you had replacement depots that would provide individual soldiers for combat casualties. You retained unit cohesion, provided all the NCOs and officers weren't being killed by mortars, at the expense of the individual soldier. That's what all the big chiefs in Vietnam wanted to avoid, because that is what their experiences of combat were.

If they'd been able to swap out Regular battalions with the Guard battalions, they would have had the best of both worlds, which is what Abrams' Total Force did.

Rotational policies do the opposite of what you imply. They improve soldiers' individual mental health and fitness at the expense of their organization's ability.

This is specifically the part that I'm interested in. I assume you mean that mental health was improved because they get out of Vietnam faster than waiting for their entire unit to leave. But wouldn't it be better for mental health to stick with the unit you've formed such close ties with

What's better?

1) Going home to friends and family in twelve months.
2) Waiting another three to twelve months to be killed by a mine or a sniper.

Rotational policies aren't going to help you transition back to the civilian world, though. That's on you and your own ability to find and join a regiment or veteran's association.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

snip

You've provided one example of a relatively isolated incident. The Ukrainians happened to have a few WW1 vintage maxim guns laying around so they decided to put them to use. If they were SG-43s instead of Maxim guns they would have probably used them just the same. The Ukrainian army does not issue maxim guns. They issue PKs, RPKs, DShKs, and NSVs. No military issues as standard maxim guns, or vickers guns, or m1917s, or Mg 08s or any of their analogues. Their only advantage is that some of them still exist so when groups of soldiers or rebels or whatever stumble upon a still working copy they may choose to put it to use because an old, obsolete MG is better than no MG. That doesn't mean any military is going to go out and buy maxim guns. Probably because there are plenty of MGs available on the arms market, like the PK or FN MAG, which are better in every relevant way.

[-AlEmAnNiA-]

I saw a picture of Syrians waving swords once, does that mean the Syrian Army issues swords?

e: while the arguments pro-using water-cooled MGs makes sense, i can't help but feel using pictures from a country embroiled in civil war as justification of them being used in the modern day is sensible

[Dostanuot Loj]

i genuinely think the only reason the British army phased out the Vickers was because they were switching from .303 to 7.62mm NATO and the treasury were too cheap to pay to convert them.

I can believe it, considering how many of them are still in British armories.
Seriously, they never got rid of them, just stopped using them.

[North Arkana]

lee-enfield is a perfectly viable modern service rifle

If it's good enough for Who Dares Wins...

Entered service in 1970, replaced in 85 by the AI AW.

[Gallia-]

You've provided one example of a relatively isolated incident.

Frequency of a belief isn't a metric of whether an idea is good or bad.

The Ukrainians happened to have a few WW1 vintage maxim guns laying around so they decided to put them to use.

Indeed.

The Ukrainian army does not issue maxim guns.

Despite the fact that I just showed you pictures, it's in the news that the Ukrainian Defense Ministry has said that certain Army units use the PM1910, and primarily because of its ability to provide a much larger volume of fire than an air-cooled machine gun? Good statement.

Their only advantage is that some of them still exist so when groups of soldiers or rebels or whatever stumble upon a still working copy they may choose to put it to use because an old, obsolete MG is better than no MG.

And apparently better than an air-cooled MG if you listen to them.

That doesn't mean any military is going to go out and buy maxim guns.

Yeah, they'd spend the money on Eurocopters and wheeled AFVs instead. Frequency of belief doesn't invalidate an idea. Just because people believed Aristotle for 2,000 years doesn't make him right. Just because people stopped using Vickers machine guns 60 years ago doesn't make them right.

Instead of trying to form your argument with the non-logic of "because it's popular", try analyzing the real reasons that people stopped using water cooled machine guns. It has nothing to do with air-cooled machine guns being "universally superior", because water-cooled and air-cooled machine guns served alongside each other for over 30 years in the British and American armies.

Probably because there are plenty of MGs available on the arms market, like the PK or FN MAG, which are better in every relevant way.

What a stupid statement. Relevance is situational and requires contextual analysis to determine an actual answer. Absolutism is intellectual cancer.

Fighting a predominantly light infantry force with little to zero mechanization and in a defensive position, a water-cooled machine gun is great: It can provide a huge amount of firepower for a long duration provided it has ammo and coolant, which is something an air-cooled machine gun can't do. Whether it's useful or not, again, is an open question.

I saw a picture of Syrians waving swords once, does that mean the Syrian Army issues swords?

e: while the arguments pro-using water-cooled MGs makes sense, i can't help but feel using pictures from a country embroiled in civil war as justification of them being used in the modern day is sensible

Swords are the next strawman argument, after T-34s and MiG-19s! What's next, bringing back phalanx?! When will it end?

Ukraine has the dubious fortune to be fighting a predominantly non-mechanized foe with a predominantly non-mechanized army. Water cooled machine guns make the most sense when they aren't fighting mechanized troops, because tanks are usually bulletproof. I could legitimately see a modern army using water cooled machine guns in lieu of 12.7mm HMGs, if the USSR and USA hadn't unabashedly monopolized the entire continuity of military thought.

Now people seem to think solutions that work for Russia and the USA work for everyone, equally, much to the lament of those people slavishly copying ideas. A very :Third World: method of analysis, actually.

If it's good enough for Who Dares Wins...

Entered service in 1970, replaced in 85 by the AI AW.

Literally like the first line:

The L42A1 was a 7.62×51mm NATO conversion of the .303 British chambered Lee–Enfield No. 4 Mk1(T) and No. 4 Mk1*(T) WWII-era British sniper rifles

[-AlEmAnNiA-]

I'd have put several things ahead of "swords" as a strawman argument

[Western Pacific Territories]

At this point I wouldn't be surprised if we saw "Free Syrian Army" units assaulting IS positions with siege towers. You know, the ones from Kingdom of Heaven. Prolly have to be honest.

[Dostanuot Loj]

At this point I wouldn't be surprised if we saw "Free Syrian Army" units assaulting IS positions with siege towers. You know, the ones from Kingdom of Heaven. Prolly have to be honest.

This would require IS to build competent fortified positions.

You might see the other way though, IS assaulting FSA positions with siege towers.

[Gallia-]

I'd have put several things ahead of "swords" as a strawman argument

martini-henries?

b/c more automatic v. lighter automatic is comparable to yee haw cowboy trapdoor springfield v. lightest automatic v:

[-AlEmAnNiA-]

maybe handcranked then martini-henries then swords

re: Total Force Policy: are there any PDFs or books that talk about it, since it seems like it might be worth while to look into

[Gallia-]

http://www.ncfa.ncr.gov/sites/default/f ... 0v1%20.pdf

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

A weapon designed before mechanization is useful when neither sized is mechanized, how shocking. To keep the "strawman" going a T-34 is also useful when your enemy has no attack helicopters and no AT weapon heavier than an M1 bazooka. Water cooled MGs are great if you're going to sit in one place and shoot for an extended period time. Which would be fine if sitting in one place and shooting for an extended period of time wasn't begging to be killed by a sniper or mortar strike or airstrike. Thus MGs, and their supporting accessories, need to be light and mobile so crews can quickly relocate. Hence things like PK, FN MAG, etc. A vickers with water and its tripod weighs what, 100 ibs? Not exactly mobile. A modern GPMG trades maybe slightly less sustained ROF for a third the weight and the ability to be fired from a bipod and from the shoulder. In 99% of engagements it is ostensibly the superior weapon. Which is why everyone and their mother uses the PK or MAG or some derivative/variant of the two and virtually nobody uses water cooled MGs.

[-AlEmAnNiA-]

http://www.ncfa.ncr.gov/sites/default/files/PE-175-RC%20Abrams%20Doctrine%20Sept%2016%20final%20v1%20.pdf

thanks bby <3

[Gallia-]

A weapon designed before mechanization is useful when neither sized is mechanized, how shocking.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Maxims were used in all the major mechanized wars of the 20th century:

1) WW1
2) WW2

And a pair of minor ones, which at times were mechanized:

1) Korea
2) Vietnam

Try harder.

To keep the "strawman" going

Let's not.

Come back when you have a real argument formulated or get the fuck out.

A vickers with water and its tripod weighs what, 100 ibs? Not exactly mobile.

Substantially more portable than the "M2HB" or "TOW".

In 99% of engagements it is ostensibly the superior weapon.

Do you know what "ostensibly" means? Because if you do, this is a tremendous troll and I applaud you.

Otherwise, show me your PhD thesis and the model that allowed you to arrive at this conclusion.

Which is why everyone and their mother uses the PK or MAG or some derivative/variant of the two and virtually nobody uses water cooled MGs.

This is not an argument. This is an observation. It holds no truth, it merely is. Everyone and their mother also aped the Soviet Union and the USA throughout the Cold War with no thought in the matter. Is that a good idea? A bad one? You can't say, because it provides no actual truth value. The similar is applied to water-cooled machine guns.

Besides, Arthuritsa knows more about machine guns than you do, so your statements are basically worthless. Again you apply an unnecessarily absolutist concept that really is quite irrelevant. Even in real life. There's no such thing as a bad water-cooled machine gun, just like there's no such thing as "natural rights". And no, neither air-cooled machine guns nor the UDHR made either of the previous true.

[Western Pacific Territories]

At this point I wouldn't be surprised if we saw "Free Syrian Army" units assaulting IS positions with siege towers. You know, the ones from Kingdom of Heaven. Prolly have to be honest.

This would require IS to build competent fortified positions.

You might see the other way though, IS assaulting FSA positions with siege towers.

I wouldn't eliminate that either. At this point I'm convinced we should keep the Syrian Civil War going indefinitely for the sole reason that it's the perfect place to test and see if a fucking Napoleonic War-era cannon can damage a T-72, or other stupid things like that. And we've already seen IS use Crusader castles as defensive positions if I'm not mistaken.

[Laritaia]

i really need to finish my tank with a pair of water cooled HMGs welded to teh TC's cupola in place of his GPMG

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

snip

What did I say earlier? Maxim guns/watercooled MGs were used because they were around. Because an old, obsolete MG is better than no MG. You know what else was used in WW1, WW2, and Korea? Anti-tank rifles. Clearly we should consider them a viable alternative to a LAW or RPG-7. Hell, flamethrowers were also used in WW1, WW2, Korea, and Vietnam yet almost nobody considers them to be viable infantry weapons anymore. The the fact that virtually everyone has ditched their maxims in favor of aircooled GPMGs isn't an "argument" (hello Stefan Molymeme) but it is pretty damning evidence that the world has concluded that the former are inferior to the latter. Even in roles where sustained fire capability might be more important and portability less important, like MGs mounted to vehicles, nobody uses watercooled MGs.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

snip

What did I say earlier? Maxim guns/watercooled MGs were used because they were around. Because an old, obsolete MG is better than no MG. You know what else was used in WW1, WW2, and Korea? Anti-tank rifles. Clearly we should consider them a viable alternative to a LAW or RPG-7. Hell, flamethrowers were also used in WW1, WW2, Korea, and Vietnam yet almost nobody considers them to be viable infantry weapons anymore. The the fact that virtually everyone has ditched their maxims in favor of aircooled GPMGs isn't an "argument" (hello Stefan Molymeme) but it is pretty damning evidence that the world has concluded that the former are inferior to the latter. Even in roles where sustained fire capability might be more important and portability less important, like MGs mounted to vehicles, nobody uses watercooled MGs.

You keep being wrong. Are you making this a habit?