Tweet
Originally posted by jester
Moreover, I found them interesting as, in T2K, regular infantries are increasingly rare. Espeically the one with the proper gear to stop such vehicles.
-
I understood your point but recent experience by israel prove you wrong. Don't forget that this might not be intended to fight regular infantry.
Moreover, I found them interesting as, in T2K, regular infantries are increasingly rare. Espeically the one with the proper gear to stop such vehicles. -
I realised I quoted myself after I had typed everything.Originally posted by MohoenderJest you got confused, you quoted yourself.
Of course but I was not being serious or not entirely. Your view of the Russian, however, is pretty simple and I would say false. During WWII Russian were using more snipers than anyone else (they still do). They used 14.5 rifle as soon as 1942. At Kursk they used a multi-layer defense that destroyed massive attacks by the Germans.
They use mass fire when employing low level soldier but that is true to everyone. Things might be changing as most armies are now professional troops, highly trained. That would not remain as such in case of global conflict as you would have to rely on less trained troopers (in my opinion).
At a tactical level what you say is true for everyone, at a strategic level everyone use as much power as it can to the soldier dismay usually. You gave the Somme as an exemple but there are several more recent ones: Stalingrad, Monte Cassino, Berlin, Beyruth (1982), Falloudja...
Falloudja as an example of massive barage Explain that one Beruit Not really, those are different as well. The only similiarity was the attempt to control the city. But brining as much force one can muster on a city, no, not really the US has not done that since WWII, the other wars we didn't use as much force as we could have/should have to flatten a city before we sent in ground troops in order to save the city or spare the civilians.
As for training troops in a hurry, again the US does place emphasis on marksmanship, we always have.
You are talking about "snipers" snipers are not regular soldiers. I am talking about the regular rifleman in the ranks.
Also, keep in mind the doctrine of the armies. In some, the rifle team is there to support the macinegun, in others the machinegun is there to support the rifleteam. Which determines the use and effectiveness of your suppressive fire."God bless America, the land of the free, but only so long as it remains the home of the brave."Comment
-
Originally posted by Mohoender
And thus I was wondering what its purpose was for As I said, how many vehicles would you need to get an adaquate amount of infantry to support not just the vehicle but also the position"God bless America, the land of the free, but only so long as it remains the home of the brave."Comment
-
Ok I didn't got it about the regular infantry man. Both Falloudja and Beyruth saw more destruction than needed but that is a personnal opinion from what info I got (I might be wrong then). On both, I was not clear enough, then, I didn't mean to compare them with the amount of destruction found in WWII, but both had to face air and artillery attacks that might have helped the defenders more than the attackers (more like Monte Cassino). I could have sited Vietnam as another exemple or Okinawa (then you right again: WWII).
I agree about U.S. emphasizing on marksmanship as much as it can. But that's valid only when you control the ground and more or less the war. Nevertheless, I was talking about T2K not about IRL and in T2K, I don't expect U.S. to field only well trained troops. Casualties are too high and you need to replace the losses in a hury. I understand that many among you are playing very experienced soldiers; I usually have less experienced groups that get better from "field training" if they survive of course .
If you look closely at the Russians, the russian army never numbered much more than 400.000 troops. These are the well equipped core and they are reinforced by less trained and effective troops that would come in much larger numbers. Usually, the less trained one are entering the field first, when the ennemy get to the core, it has exhausted its best forces. Standard Russian procedure from way before the soviets.
About Marksmanship, I would think that U.S. entered the war in Iraq baddly prepared with inadequate equipments and command. Things certainly have changed today. For my campaign, I'm now over with Russia and got on U.S. and Britain. As a result, I get more info on new equipments fielded by both armies. Things have changed a lot. It just goes to an old idea: an army is always well prepared for the previous war and unprepared for the next.
About these vehicles I think they are developped for the same purpose than similar vehicles made by Israel.Last edited by Mohoender; 10-28-2008, 04:31 PM.Comment
-
[QUOTE=Mohoender]Ok I didn't got it about the regular infantry man. Both Falloudja and Beyruth saw more destruction than needed but that is a personnal opinion from what info I got (I might be wrong then). On both, I was not clear enough, then, I didn't mean to compare them with the amount of destruction found in WWII, but both had to face air and artillery attacks that might have helped the defenders more than the attackers (more like Monte Cassino). I could have sited Vietnam as another exemple or Okinawa (then you right again: WWII).
Yes, most of what I was talking about was regular well trained infantry, usualy light, which could be applied to Marine infantry, Heliborne or Paratroopers. As for Falujah, to my knowledge the city was not blown to pieced with artillery, and air assets were used in a very limited manner, the city for the most part is rebuilt and has just been turned back to its people. If artillery had been used along with airstrikes it would still be rubble. As for Beruit, that was multiple factions who did not care and used everything they had. And that fighting lasted for how many years, pitty too as it was the Paris of the Med and just when you think its getting normal something happens. I'd truly like to go there one day.
As for artillery and air aiding defenders like Monte Casino, Beruit, probably, Faluja, not really. What was used was precision and used with great restriction, much like the Battle of Hue durring TET.
As for Vietnam, air assets and urban/civilian targets where I am interested. I mentioned Hue, it was 105s and 75mm rockets and a few runs that were restricted to the old citidel.
As for Okinawa, there was some reguard for the civilians, but yes, Naha, and the ancient Suri Castle and others were blasted. However, the defenses were also formidable as well. So that is an argument that is not likely to be won, its like the chicken or the egg arugment of which came first Was Okinawa a harder fight because we used heavy artillery and air or did it help since the Japanese had such massive defenses. However, you also see a progression of actualy taking the civilians in consideration before resorting to such things.
I agree about U.S. emphasizing on marksmanship as much as it can. But that's valid only when you control the ground and more or less the war. Nevertheless, I was talking about T2K not about IRL and in T2K, I don't expect U.S. to field only well trained troops. Casualties are too high and you need to replace the losses in a hury. I understand that many among you are playing very experienced soldiers; I usually have less experienced groups that get better from "field training" if they survive of course .
How does marksmanship not remain a factor weather you control the ground or not I do not follow you.
As for conscripts. Being poorly trained, which is what I am understanding your point to be in a T2K conflict. Maybe in a T2K setting, but some factors to consider. Who would be called up first to replace the losses of the regulars Early war volunteers who would be well trained, reservists and natuional guardsmen called to active duty, indaviduals who had been in the military who would be recalled, and men like me who had no reserve obligation but could be called back or woulsd come back on their own who were already trained. Those are who would replace the casualties. The new recruits would take about a year to train. Using WWII as a example older expeirenced troops from the theaters and those who had service and were recalled would be used to form new units being raised, with new recruits going to replacement units who would then be delivered to the units to replace losses, however, the replacements usualy came in 1s, 2s and 3s and would be assimilated into the unit and even trained to gain some level of knowlege.
However, I would suggest this! By the time it was down to ill trained recruits the situation at home would have deteriorated so they would be needed at home, and the resources to send these men overseas to Eruope would not be there. It would not be a major priority at that point, coupled with the fact that the lines would probably have stagnated by that time as well.
If you look closely at the Russians, the russian army never numbered much more than 400.000 troops. These are the well equipped core and they are reinforced by less trained and effective troops that would come in much larger numbers. Usually, the less trained one are entering the field first, when the ennemy get to the core, it has exhausted its best forces. Standard Russian procedure from way before the soviets.
Ah but universal conscription was the key! Their regular army numbered that much, but their reserves were how many And yes they were not the top of the line forces but still they were trained personel.
And then we come to the idea of the Elite units being saved, much asd Napoleon used his Imperial Guards to administer the Coups De Grace, got it! Its an old tactic used by the Old World.
About Marksmanship, I would think that U.S. entered the war in Iraq baddly prepared with inadequate equipments and command. Things certainly have changed today. For my campaign, I'm now over with Russia and got on U.S. and Britain. As a result, I get more info on new equipments fielded by both armies. Things have changed a lot. It just goes to an old idea: an army is always well prepared for the previous war and unprepared for the next.
About these vehicles I think they are developped for the same purpose than similar vehicles made by Israel. QUOTE]
Badly equiped Eh, not as well equiped as they could or should have been, but badly Thats a bit rough. Remember, we went into Iraq more or less as the Game says "A come as you are war." We were not preparing for a war. 9/11 was a surprise and we didn't have alot of time between that and Iraq. We were just finishing with a "draw down" and "BRAC" evolution which was the reduction in our military forces, ships bases and similair assets, And I will be political, the military was NEGLECTED and ABUSED durring the Clintoon years, the scum bucket hated the military and he kept it no secret, his wife was worse. And I did hear them say it too. The down side of being staioned in Hawaii and them liking to vacation there. An example, a company rated 25 9mm pistols. 1 was not red taged! Half our M60s were red taged, 1 of our mortars but that was okay as we only had enough men for 1 propper gun team but we managed two guns. SMAWs we had about 2/3s of them servicable, I lived in a building that had been condemed since before Vietnam and was infested with cockroaches, we had no money for fuield operations and even 1 mess hall was closed, so you had to go to the wing side for food, and if they ran out you got hotdogs or nothing at times. The military was improving under Bush and just prior to 9/11 but it had a LONG WAY to go.
Yes, I know the adage, it goes like this, "An army is always trained to fight the last war it fought." Whcih is sad but true because that is how/where its leadership gained their expereince, that is IF that leadership has experience. Quite often peacetime leadership is little more than good administrators and ass kissers.
As for the purpose of the vehicles, what is their purpose other than a cool factor aand for a Party in T2K it would be cool to have. Or maybe Ivan in his utilitarian mind is making good use of something they have tons of rather than just wasting it
Okay, the next question is, IF you had either or both vehicles with their capacities, what would you use them for And how could you be successful using them Lets say you have a platoons worth, 3 Vehicles with a total of 15 dismounts.
"God bless America, the land of the free, but only so long as it remains the home of the brave."Comment
-
Thanks for the facts about fallujah.
When talking about ground I'm facing my english limitations. Lets say that when things go from desperate to worse you go about anything.
In T2K I would not assume the WWII recruiting process to apply after the nuclear exchange. So far, U.S. wasn't hit and that gives it an advantage. In T2K, I would expect to find militias facing the Mexican attack and poorly trained troops being ferried to Europe during and after the exchange. Moreover, don't forget that you already said that you would be dead in such case. US might fall short of national guards.
When I said badly equipped I misused the word somehow. I meant badly equiped for that war. It worked more than fine as long as US troops were facing the regular iraqi army. It was not that good when facing guerilla. However, I have seen that some impressive equipments are entering service.
I would put it in the same way as you could have in 1776 about British: don't fight the US Army in open field and expect to win.Comment
-
About vehicles
If I have 3 (1 BMP-T and 2 BTR-T) that will make only 10 infantries. I would use the vehicles to progress through an urban area relying on the heavier and reactive armor to survive anti tanks and heavy MGs that prove deadly for regular APCs.
Near the objective, I would take my infantry out. The BMP-T would provide cover and fire support for them, may be progressing in front. I would use the BTR-T as support vehicles covering my troops from behind.
However, if I can, I'll retain the BMP-T and replace the BTR-T by Achzarit or Nakpadon (I can also hope for the politicians to order an improved BTR-T carrying more troops and fitting a rear door ).
Comment
-
Three Bradleys only have 18 dismounts -- what would you use them forOriginally posted by jesterComment
-
Originally posted by Mohoender
No not really;
1.) In a twilight war, there would be a more or less general recall of ALL reserves before the nuclear weapons fell. Remember, the fighting began in the Spring summer but the ICBMs did not fall until our Thanksgiving which is mid November.
Further, once the bombs fell and the long reaches of the government ceased, or ceased priority how would they conscript IT would be very poor. Only within the immediate reach of the government and not much beyond.
As for me being dead. IF I remained where I was and the places that were prime targets were still targeted. However, a year ago I underwent a massive bone surgery to remove metal rods and screws used to save my leg in 91. Why To remove the barrier from my reinlietment. I am still trying to get back in! Do you think that now that the big show has kicked off with Ivan I would stand on the sidelines Oh no! I would find a way to Europe or SouthWest Asia or Korea, I would be a part. And if needbe I would walk to Washigtinton State or British Columbia. Or even just stay at home and pick off the Mexican Army from the end of my block. That is me. I really really do hate the comies. I really do! I hate them more than fascists.
But, would the poorly trained troops be sent to Europe or kept at home to deal with the rift between Milgov and Civgov The Mexicans and the Russians in the Pacific Northwest And the New Americans and of course the legions of marauders and rogue military/police and mayors of the local governments and small towns.
Think about it How oftenn would troops destined for Europe be diverted to internal issues while they were waiting on transport to Europe
As for poorly equiped, no, we were. In that time span the Marines ansd Army have transitioned uniforms, primary rifle, vehicles, radios, body armor and all kinds of items I have no idea of what it is. Remember, we had been in a reduction of forces for a decade that was the mindset, new equipment ha! That was one of the furtherst things.
As for the Iraqi Army vs a Guerilla war or insurgency. It is not the equipment, it is the training, mindset and DOCTRINE. We went in with the conventional mindset. What you said about the old adage "We prepare for our next war the way we fought the last" was on target in this case! We fought the Iraqis in 91, it was conventional and so we thought thats what it would be like this time. So, that is how we thought, how we prepared the troops and we were successful in the convetional mode, but after we were caught short. The equipment was not important, the way the troops thought, acted and their mindset and the comands mindset and their failing to expect and prepare for the aftermath.
Keep this in mind alot of units had trained for such operations in the 80s and 90s as a result of Vietnam. But it was thrown out the window after the 91 Gulf War, that was something we covered ALOT as well as jungle and amphib operations, for us Desert and conventional war was the thing we were not overly schooled on.
And really, as it Mosiah Diane said in an interview,
"Well the Vietnamese are not Arabs." When he was asked to comment and compare the lightening victory they had against the arab forces to the Vietnamese after/durring Tet."God bless America, the land of the free, but only so long as it remains the home of the brave."Comment
-
Jest
I'm not sure we entirely agree but I see much common ground here.
By the way, about you being dead, you were the one saying it some times ago.
That was because of your location as I recall. Welcome back then. I'm glad to hear that you won't end in a bright hot light.
I'll stick to my idea, however, but that is because it fits my game better. For me US troops being brought back home are minimal and most of the one in Europe are turning marauders (exit the trained core). Pretty much as everyone else.
The French army continue to obey orders but it suffered less casualties and destruction. Russians are increasingly individualistic. Germans are obeying orders but they are German after all (that goes for much of the British army also) . Australia has become a powerful military power but that is probably because I consider Australian to be really brave.
Comment
-
Update!!!
They are not using the T-55/65 series for this vehicle. They are using the T-72 chasis! Now, as an infantryman that does scare me! Granted it doesn't have the gun the full tank has, but its got a couple PK type machineguns and some 30mm grenade launchers and the troops to dismount, it did not say how many.
It also has dual tracking/firecontrol systems for the commander and gunner.
Here is the link:
And check out the rest of the site, a multibarreled 40mm grenade launcher and a pump action grenade launcher both awsome to have but I am not thrilled Ivan has it, damnit! I want one too!
Hey, hey guys who did 2013! Did you include this stuff in the weapons section"God bless America, the land of the free, but only so long as it remains the home of the brave."Comment
Comment