• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bad ideas in war

catsmate said:
Partially the issues at Crete were down to poor Fallschirmjäger equipment, their equipment design meant that they didn't have proper small arms until after landing.
Click to expand...


As I just posted. They couldn't carry any more than a pistol and a couple of grenades on them and had to find and secure their equipment pods after landing.
 
Basically it's just hard to deliver enough equipment to properly sustain a light infantry assault by air. We've gotten better at it since Crete, but the problem remains.
 
Yes, if you are going to use airborne troops to take and hold ground you need to get to them on the ground very quickly.
 
theprestige said:
Sudden and unrelenting aggression can overcome a multitude of tactical disadvantages.
Click to expand...


That's why the British Army are still trained to charge with bayonet. Like Corporal
Jones of the 1st Battalion, The Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment (1 PWRR), did when fighting the Taliban in 2007.

His patrol was getting pinned in a ditch by a crossfire from two directions so with two men giving covering fire he led the other 4 in a bayonet charge that routed the attackers.

As another, well known Corporal Jones was known to say "They don't like it up 'em"
Jones was awarded a Military Cross.
 
Worse yet, the Germans would have to first look for where in Odin's name that equipment crate even landed first.
 
In general Bill Slim’s book “Defeat into Victory”, he argues against the formation of elite troops. He said that picking the best men out form rangers, paratroopers, and so on, just lowered the quality of the rest of the troops, and they didn’t perform better than well-led regular troops. He even argued that anybody could learn to jump with parachutes, and that he had employed some regular troops in this role in Burma.

Unfortunately, I can’t locate my old paper copy of this book, so it is all quoted from memory.
 
Very true in certain respects.

Your 'elite' troops end up sitting round doing nothing waiting for a situation where their particular skills are needed or they get used as regular troops and are wasted. That's what happened to the German airborne units and also to the Russians in Ukreaine
 
Andy_Ross said:
Very true in certain respects.

Your 'elite' troops end up sitting round doing nothing waiting for a situation where their particular skills are needed or they get used as regular troops and are wasted. That's what happened to the German airborne units and also to the Russians in Ukreaine
Click to expand...
I don't think an 80 year-old case and a modern day Muscovite case are very comprehensive examples of this.

I think a two-tier army can work in some contexts. For example, if you can't afford to train and equip your entire fighting population to the same high standard. But you still have to use them effectively, and according to a sensible doctrine. The VDV and the 1GTA failed in Ukraine not because elite troops are a bad idea, but because Muscovite war planners are ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ stupid.

There is a place in warfare, both modern and ancient, for elite formations and specialist troops. A highly-mobile, well-trained and well-equipped quick reaction force is a good thing to have. But you use them as scouts and skirmishers, not as regular infantry. The Army Rangers are often mobilized as a security force for Delta operators. While the really special operators carry out the mission, the Rangers secure the LZ, etc. Regular infantry aren't as good at that kind of quick and effective raid on short notice.

The USMC has specialized fire control troops. These are highly trained operators who coordinate with allied units to provide effective fire support from USMC and USN assets. You can't just throw a grunt with a radio and a map in with a battalion of Bundeswehr regulars and expect him to perform anywhere near the necessary level of competence.

The USAF fields elite combat search and rescue troops, to recover pilots lost in combat zones. You can't just throw a bunch of grunts into a helicopter and expect them to be as successful as USAF Pararescue.

But yeah, in general, for land warfare, it's better to train and equip all your regular units to the same level if you can.
 
Russia has squandered it's 'elite' units by putting them in the trenches on the front line. The airborne, marines, arctic and mountain troops exist in name only, filled with conscripts.


Also there's a difference between job specialists and so called 'elite' units like airborne and marines infantry.
 
guess we can add the MOP bunker busters to the list of weapons that were extremely pricey to develop and build, and seem to have not managed to achieve the mission they were designed for.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
guess we can add the MOP bunker busters to the list of weapons that were extremely pricey to develop and build, and seem to have not managed to achieve the mission they were designed for.
Click to expand...
To be fair, the planes and the bombs probably did their bit just fine. Everyone in the world knowing well in advance exactly where you would drop them may have blunted their effect.

But the Iranians probably stored their processed uranium elsewhere anyway. It woud be really sloppy to keep all your eggs in one basket. They're not the Russians after all.
 
I've just caught up with Perun talking for an hour about the procurement of the LCS and the Zumwalt class

 
The LCS thing is truly bizarre, but I thought the Zumwalt procurement was perfectly cromulent (aside from the name).

The Big Z's problem is the same as the F-22's problem: With the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was no longer a peer adversary that demanded these particular new weapons. Overnight, we went from spending appropriately large sums to develop a next-gen weapon, to having a ridiculously large white elephant on our hands, with insufficient demand to ramp up economies of scale. I still think we were right to spend the money at the time, and right to shut down those expenses once we had better information about the collapse of the Soviet War Machine.
 
theprestige said:
The LCS thing is truly bizarre, but I thought the Zumwalt procurement was perfectly cromulent (aside from the name).

The Big Z's problem is the same as the F-22's problem: With the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was no longer a peer adversary that demanded these particular new weapons. Overnight, we went from spending appropriately large sums to develop a next-gen weapon, to having a ridiculously large white elephant on our hands, with insufficient demand to ramp up economies of scale. I still think we were right to spend the money at the time, and right to shut down those expenses once we had better information about the collapse of the Soviet War Machine.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure, The Arsenal ship concept seemed to be a better idea and not having it aegis compatible seems a bit silly. Also, the gun concept seemed to be waiting for something like a proper railgun to be usable with any reasonable cost.
 
Basically, I think the USN has properly stealthy ships but they tend to stay underwater most of the time.

So a surface vessel would have to do something different. The Zumwalt is not in the same position as the F22 compared to its peers.
 
I think its odd that the first attempt to build a railgun is as part of the weapons of a ship.
Given its range, a shore battery seems to be far more logical for all kinds of reasons.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
I think its odd that the first attempt to build a railgun is as part of the weapons of a ship.
Given its range, a shore battery seems to be far more logical for all kinds of reasons.
Click to expand...
I think that does make more sense for most situations. Shore batteries are vulnerable. I could imagine them having a role as point defence of critical infrastructure but not for defence against larger surface vessels. And as soon as you get out of direct fire distances, without some type of active control, ballistics limit your time of flight to the range. For example at 100km a googling suggests that the curvature of the Earth gives nearly 800m of drop. So you almost certainly want guided munitions, and why not go for missiles instead?

Railguns also would have massive power requirements so again, they would either need a big vehicle to carr their required generation capacity or additional vulnerable, fixed generation capacity.

For ships bombarding something that cannot start moving quickly, this is less of an issue .

And potentially you don't need to have guidance for such targets
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom