Advertisement
by Gallia- » Tue Mar 31, 2020 4:10 pm
by Eisarnathiuda » Tue Mar 31, 2020 4:10 pm
by Immoren » Tue Mar 31, 2020 4:26 pm
discoursedrome wrote:everyone knows that quote, "I know not what weapons World War Three will be fought, but World War Four will be fought with sticks and stones," but in a way it's optimistic and inspiring because it suggests that even after destroying civilization and returning to the stone age we'll still be sufficiently globalized and bellicose to have another world war right then and there
by Eisarnathiuda » Tue Mar 31, 2020 4:27 pm
by Manokan Republic » Tue Mar 31, 2020 6:32 pm
Spirit of Hope wrote:The Germans didn't use horses in WWII because they wanted to, they used them because they had to. There are very few places where horses can go, that motor vehicles can't go, that are worth fighting over. Yes a horse can go down a specific path a truck might not be able to take, but a truck can take a different path. If there are no paths a truck can take to the area, why are you fighting over it?
Meanwhile horses have a much larger logistical need than trucks, with issues like food and water, veterinary care, proper exercise and sleep. Nor can you simply make horses, breeding and raising horses is a specialist skill.
by Spirit of Hope » Tue Mar 31, 2020 7:19 pm
Manokan Republic wrote:Like anything in life, the path you have to take is as important as the destination. A plane or helicopter can theoretically go anywhere, but planes tend to be more fragile and have no cover or concealment, and thus easier to shoot down, be it through anti-aircraft guns or missiles. They also can only maintain being in the air for short periods of time and have limited ranges, making it difficult to stay in flight or occupy certain territories. They announce they are coming with tremendous noise and by being visible form many miles away, standing out from a background that usually has nothing in it, I.E. the sky. That's before things like price and complexity.
Armored vehicles tend to be better suited for withstanding heavy fire, but can't go over rough terrain and are forced to go through specific paths which make them vulnerable. These paths are easily ambushed, mined, or obstructed, making travel in a convenient and safe way difficult.
It costs lives to go in to rough terrain, and not just time, which are both issues with strategic capabilities. Being able to go through a less expected path, and still be stealthy is a tremendous advantage, as avoidance is the first step to avoid being shit.
This is on top of it being far cheaper to just go on foot or use an animal.
Infantry are still employed on foot for two main reasons, either to take ground, or because going on foot in that environment is more advantageous.
Be it clearing a room (of which a vehicle can't really be expected to fit inside every building), or going up the side of a mountain, there are plenty of environments where the enemy may have reached slowly, that you still need to reach quickly in order to be able to fight them.
When you have the advantage to prepare and dig in, it's easy enough to get supplies to an area, but if you have to move quickly and safely, the problem becomes more complicated. You end up taking heavy causalities by rushing the enemy who is already in a good defensive position, taking tremendous risks, going slow enough to let the enemy get away or attack other forces, or otherwise being bogged down, which is why you want to go on the unpredictable path.
Roads are broad and open, and thus make the rigid movement patterns predictable.
The moment the enemy knows where you are going to be ahead of time is the moment you are vulnerable, as they can mine the area, or prepare to attack it with large weapons.
Be it a group of guerrillas or a professional military waiting to simply bomb your position, you don't want your movement patterns to be exposed and open, and thus going through the rougher terrain conceals your actions and makes your actions less predictable.
Given that infantry have poor armor, it's avoidance that must take priority to avoid taking casualties.
The reason why you want to go in to rough terrain is to fight the enemy; as for specific modern examples, there is a tendency for guerrillas to hole up in mountains, or jungles, or forested areas, or even urban environments precisely because it's difficult to reach them.
The Mujhadeen in Afghanistan and Viet Cong in Vietnam were not necessarily insanely intelligent or well equipped, but simply were inherently difficult to fight given they were already well established in their environment, and so helicopters, vehicles and so on, while providing tons of mobility and defense for the soldiers, proved to still be difficult to get to.
Why you fight someone in these regions is because that is where they are, and you obviously have some incentive for getting rid of them.
The guerrilla can wage hit and run attacks, retreating back to favorable terrain you refuse to follow, until you choose to go after them, of which then you need the ability to maneuver.
So, as to why you want to fight an enemy who is in terrain that is difficult to reach safely... this is kind of an odd question given it's the primary problem with modern combat.
Give enough time the enemy can set up there and dig in, but it will be difficult for you to reach the same position, let alone go along the same road that the enemy built, or going along their same path. You may not be able to take the same path as the enemy, or the easy way may be more dangerous, and so, it makes sense to try to find a way around it that isn't in the direct line of sight of the enemy.
To put as simply as possible, "The easy way is always mined".
Hence it often pays to go the hard way. It's why elite units focus on insertion methods. Navy Seals and Marines are trained to go through the water, the Airborne are deployed from the air, Mechanized troops go in vehicles, Rangers are trained for the mountains and forests, and so on. Troops are often defined by the environment they're expected to be in (I.E. the Marines, Navy, Air Force), and going in through harsh environments quickly is kind of the way you win in modern warfare, relying on speed and mobility to retain the element of surprise and outflank the enemy. As to why you'd want to go in a different way than is expected or to find a way around the obvious route, well... I thought that would be obvious. But it's largely to avoid enemy fire until you are ready to strike.
Taking the predictable path puts you in danger. Something like 50% of our losses in Afghanistan and Iraq were logistics convoys, largely for fuel, and most of the deaths were due to IED's and landmines, or attacks on soldiers when on the road. Predictable road patterns makes you vulnerable, and importantly your logistic supply routes.
Manokan Republic wrote:The logistics for animals is simpler and smaller, and can be deployed in larger numbers.
Animals often can eat from their environment, drinking the stagnant water humans can't or eating things like grass and brush, and many animals can survive much longer than humans without water and food, be them camels or the Mongolian horse.
The primary issue is the training, of people to both handle and ride the horses, such as the soldiers, but in terms of logistics it is far easier to supply given the total weight and volume of the goods needed is less and it's less urgent that you get them. A horse that lives off the land may eventually grow weaker, but it can still continue moving, where as a tank or truck without fuel is dead weight.
The thing is water and horse feed are effectively easier to obtain than specific forms of fuel which vehicles need, which come from specific places and routes, where as water and food can be found almost everywhere, especially for many animals.
That being said it does pose it's own separate logistical problems, which is the greatest deficit, and it lacks any sort of armor protection making the troops particularly vulnerable to enemy fire. It also takes a lot of skill to ride a horse well, especially in combat or in rough terrain.
Imperializt Russia wrote:Support biblical marriage! One SoH and as many wives and sex slaves as he can afford!
by Eisarnathiuda » Tue Mar 31, 2020 10:56 pm
Manokan Republic wrote:horse stuff
by Gallia- » Tue Mar 31, 2020 11:27 pm
by New Vihenia » Tue Mar 31, 2020 11:30 pm
by Sibauk » Wed Apr 01, 2020 12:13 am
Purpelia wrote:I don't see any logic or practicality in issuing an artillery ranged weapon to anyone but artillery forces as the only benefit it provides them is the ability to engage targets at ranges well beyond those that they should be concerning them self with. Front line infantry have better things to do (like shoot at stuff close to them) than guide in UAV's and rockets at artillery ranges. Thus, the only way I see this being employed is as an addition to the regular artillery forces. And whilst I can see it being useful in that application I do not see it being more useful than alternatives we already have such as various forms of smart submunitions or even just saturation fire from a MLRS that can hit whole formations at that range.
Spirit of Hope wrote:My question would largely be how the missile is communicating over those ranges, and in loiter mode how it spots targets/is controlled by the user. There are celerity difficulties with a 60km AT missile, but the idea of a 60km AT missile isn't bad.
by Triplebaconation » Wed Apr 01, 2020 12:21 am
by Spirit of Hope » Wed Apr 01, 2020 5:40 am
Imperializt Russia wrote:Support biblical marriage! One SoH and as many wives and sex slaves as he can afford!
by Manokan Republic » Wed Apr 01, 2020 8:11 am
Spirit of Hope wrote:Some quick math:
A 7 Ton truck can transport 14,000 lbs 300 miles in 5 hours on a road. It will require 78 gallons of gas, weighing 553 pounds. Note, range and speed are based on using a road, but the weight is based on off road capabilities.
A horse can, long term, pull about 1.5 times its weight using wheels on an a level surface. So a team of 5 draft horses could match the 7 Tons transport capability. Traveling at 3 mph it will take them 100 hours, or 6 days traveling for 16 hours a day, to travel that same 300 miles. Over that time period the horses will need roughly 1,000 to 1,200 pounds of feed and 150 to 300 gallons of water. Total supply weight to care for the horses is 2,200 to 3,600 pounds with a volume of 365 gallons to 557 gallons.
Now to to transport the same amount of equipment is taking you 20 times as long and requires 4 to 7 times as much supplies. While you can reduce the horses supply requirements by letting them graze and drink, that requires stopping for more time in places that have good grazing and a large fresh supply of water. The horses don't even have the advantage of being able to use terrain the trucks can't because any terrain a horse can reasonably pull a large heavy cart an all terrain truck can drive across.
by Manokan Republic » Wed Apr 01, 2020 8:21 am
Gallia- wrote:Horse = Low development, poor infrastructure, rural.
Car = Low to high development, good infrastructure, rural or urban.
Horses are fine if the local economy can absorb them without needing to grow a new leg. Afghanistan or Mongolia are good examples.
Cars are also fine, provided cars are in sufficient number that local infrastructure can absorb them without being overloaded. Western Europe is a good place for a tank division to live. Mongolia, not so much, because Mongolia lacks the rail and road infrastructure needed. Thankfully the Mongolian Army is a well renowned construction force so they should be able to fix that pretty quickly.
Bicycles are like horses but better, though.
by Spirit of Hope » Wed Apr 01, 2020 9:02 am
Manokan Republic wrote:Spirit of Hope wrote:Some quick math:
A 7 Ton truck can transport 14,000 lbs 300 miles in 5 hours on a road. It will require 78 gallons of gas, weighing 553 pounds. Note, range and speed are based on using a road, but the weight is based on off road capabilities.
A horse can, long term, pull about 1.5 times its weight using wheels on an a level surface. So a team of 5 draft horses could match the 7 Tons transport capability. Traveling at 3 mph it will take them 100 hours, or 6 days traveling for 16 hours a day, to travel that same 300 miles. Over that time period the horses will need roughly 1,000 to 1,200 pounds of feed and 150 to 300 gallons of water. Total supply weight to care for the horses is 2,200 to 3,600 pounds with a volume of 365 gallons to 557 gallons.
Now to to transport the same amount of equipment is taking you 20 times as long and requires 4 to 7 times as much supplies. While you can reduce the horses supply requirements by letting them graze and drink, that requires stopping for more time in places that have good grazing and a large fresh supply of water. The horses don't even have the advantage of being able to use terrain the trucks can't because any terrain a horse can reasonably pull a large heavy cart an all terrain truck can drive across.
First, horses can actually pull more and faster, and second, you don't need to pull as much weight as you aren't carrying all the heavy armor and steel and whatnot that is in a truck. You are traveling light to go around something a vehicle would have trouble doing, like the side of a mountain, a very sandy area in the desert wheels are likely to be stuck in, a really muddy area a vehicle may get stuck in, and so on. The reason why special forces uses horses and camels in Afghanistan is due to the sandy areas and mountains which were hard to travel in vehicles with, but easy to do so with animals, for all the reasons I have described.
Two horses together can on average pull about 24,000 pounds at around 3-6 mph for sustained periods of time [1][2][3], however, you don't need to do that as horses are not 12,000 pounds a pop, each. You only carry that much weight when using armored vehicles, as the vehicles are expected to pull their own weight. That's a strawman if I've ever seen one. Like infantry, the goal is not uh, well pulling heavy things, it's about getting a person to location faster. The figure of 1.5 times their body weight you're using is for deadweight, and not the weight on wheels. Obviously if you pull the weight when it's on wheels, it's much easier to transport.
So, two horses can carry a halftrack at slow speeds more or less. The goal is typically to use horses to get somewhere faster like over rough terrain rather than use them for all logistics purposes, though. If you did, they could carry a lot of weight, but would do so much more slowly than most vehicles. Or you could get there faster, but with less weight.
The advantage here is a reduction of fuel, which is useful considering it's a specific resource you can't get ahold of easily, and so getting the vehicles near the combat location at all by slowly pulling them would be the goal. The main purpose of horses or infantry is mobility, they can easily go places most modern vehicles can't. A horse can jump over obstacles, where as vehicles have to be going really fast to clear half the distance a horse or even human can.
To put forth an analogy that maybe will drive it home, imagine police never got out of their cars. They could only chase after suspects, in cars. The moment they're in a building, run down an alley way, go in to the woods etc. you would be completely useless and the suspect could always escape. So, now you're in a pickle, how do you chase after people? Well, you get out and pursue on foot, which removes a lot of your advantages and puts you at risk of the enemy shooting you, or, you use say, a horse. Horses can jump and maneuver over obstacles, and balance in awkward situations, where as a car cannot. It's as simple as that, and it's kind of just an intuitive thing.
Imperializt Russia wrote:Support biblical marriage! One SoH and as many wives and sex slaves as he can afford!
by Triplebaconation » Wed Apr 01, 2020 12:02 pm
by Purpelia » Wed Apr 01, 2020 12:27 pm
by Husseinarti » Wed Apr 01, 2020 1:00 pm
Purpelia wrote:Than again an ordinary horse did manage to cripple Superman so there is that.
by Purpelia » Wed Apr 01, 2020 1:39 pm
by Husseinarti » Wed Apr 01, 2020 2:37 pm
by Taihei Tengoku » Wed Apr 01, 2020 5:44 pm
by United Earthlings » Wed Apr 01, 2020 8:34 pm
Gallia- wrote:The upside is that Korea shows that large, mechanized tank armies are generally poor performers against large infantry armies, but this has been shown throughout the 20th century I think so it's not particularly unique to that war.
Sibauk wrote:A command-guided missile has 3 major advantages over smart submunitions from gun artillery:
1. The missile can loiter and observe, so the target does not need to be acquired first. The missile can be fired into an area with suspected enemy presence first and a target acquired later.
2. The missile is in the operator's control throughout flight and any target visually acquired by the operator themself. This allows the missile to be used in closer proximity to neutral or friendly forces than artillery - currently smart submunitions are not capable of differentiating between different types of vehicles.
3. The missile does not require a relatively heavy gun to launch making it easier for light forces to bring along.
Compared to MRLS, command-guided missiles are more precise and lower volume - this also means it weighs less.
by Husseinarti » Wed Apr 01, 2020 8:51 pm
by Radictistan » Wed Apr 01, 2020 10:33 pm
Triplebaconation wrote:big ass photo
Advertisement
Return to Factbooks and National Information
Users browsing this forum: The Socialist State of Brazil, The United States of Ibica, Vorkat
Advertisement