Bad ideas in war

[Andy_Ross]

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.

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.

 

[theprestige]

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.

 

[Andy_Ross]

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.

 

[Wudang]

I have mates who served in 2 Para. They basically said their life expectancy was pretty short from when they landed which is why they were all trained to dial aggression up to 11.

 

[theprestige]

Sudden and unrelenting aggression can overcome a multitude of tactical disadvantages.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Sudden and unrelenting aggression can overcome a multitude of tactical disadvantages.

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.

 

[HansMustermann]

Worse yet, the Germans would have to first look for where in Odin's name that equipment crate even landed first.

 

[steenkh]

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.

 

[Andy_Ross]

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

 

[theprestige]

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

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.

 

[Andy_Ross]

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.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

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.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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.

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.

 

[jimbob]

I've just caught up with Perun talking for an hour about the procurement of the LCS and the Zumwalt class

 

[theprestige]

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.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I agree.

 

[jimbob]

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.

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.

 

[jimbob]

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.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

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.

 

[jimbob]

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.

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

 

[The Great Zaganza]

In an age of missiles and drones you can always question the point of a railgun.

 

[Andy_Ross]

A Railgun would be an ideal AA weapon.

 

[jimbob]

A Railgun would be an ideal AA weapon.

Exactly,

Especially if you are looking at defending against multiple drones and missiles

 

[catsmate]

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.

Subs are generally out of communication with other vessels and can't easily be tied into the modern data network.

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.

What exactly is such a battery for? Even with a range in the low hundreds of kilometres you need a suitable target in that area. Also shore batteries tend to be immobile, unless you;re postulating a return to rail or truck borne heavy artillery?

In an age of missiles and drones you can always question the point of a railgun.

Cost and velocity favour guns. If you look at, say, Ukraine, there are a lot of mortar, gun/howitzer and rocket rounds being fired.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Ports are absolutely critical for military and economic purposes, and are a primary target in times of war - and many countries have very few, very critical ports. Defences independent of Naval forces would make sense.

 

[jimbob]

Ports are absolutely critical for military and economic purposes, and are a primary target in times of war - and many countries have very few, very critical ports. Defences independent of Naval forces would make sense.

But not large calibre shore guns. If you are defending against ships, you are still trying to hit a manoeuvring target that could track your shells with radar and take avoiding action unless your shells have some type of guidance. (Or shoot them down or a combination)Whereupon it would often be better to go for a far more flexible missile battery with a far longer effective range.

Point defence weapons, that could defend against flying or surface drones and cruise missiles are another questioni.


This wouldn't be the case for a ship performing shore bombardment - as the port cannot move. And there would be plenty of other things that a shop could bombard effectively near the coast

However I'm not sure that the range of the Zumwalt's AGS is sufficient for it to have been that useful especially for the development costs compared to even fairly cheap missiles..

Which is why I said it would have made more sense if there was an effective railgun for it to use. But as there isn't, having more missiles makes more sense to me.

With, say a 200km range such a ship could stand off shore and reach across the Korean Peninsula, and would have a similar range to the silkworm missile.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

You can't intercept railgun shells - that's kinda the whole point. The other is that a railgun has a way, way longer reach than any ship cannon.
A port railgun could be stored away like a nuke in a silo until needed, making it impervious to attacks.

But I guess a better location would be in range of narrow straits, basically controlling access from from 200-400km away.

 

[catsmate]

Ports are absolutely critical for military and economic purposes, and are a primary target in times of war - and many countries have very few, very critical ports. Defences independent of Naval forces would make sense.

So what? Immobile railgun batteries are targets for everything, can't hide and can't move.

You can't intercept railgun shells - that's kinda the whole point.

Of course they can. Anything, even the much vaunted "hypersonic missiles" can be intercepted, especially by developments in lasers.

The other is that a railgun has a way, way longer reach than any ship cannon.

Even compared to a similar railgun on a ship?

A port railgun could be stored away like a nuke in a silo until needed, making it impervious to attacks.

Nothing is "impervious to attacks".

But I guess a better location would be in range of narrow straits, basically controlling access from from 200-400km away.

And again you're relying on one weapon system. One immobile weapon systems.

 

[jimbob]

You can't intercept railgun shells - that's kinda the whole point.

Ships can dodge and quite possibly could intercept railgun shells.

Even at 100 km the shell still has to fall almost a kilometre just to take account of the curvature of the earth and assuming the round was flying at 2.5 km per second at launch (so Mach 7) you are looking at over 40 seconds flight time.

ETA And you need some way to actually locate the ship in the first place. Presumably from some aerial vehicles, that would, if they are in line of sight to the ship, potentially vulnerable to lasers, or maybe even the shipborne railgun

 

[Andy_Ross]

You can't intercept railgun shells - that's kinda the whole point. The other is that a railgun has a way, way longer reach than any ship cannon.
A port railgun could be stored away like a nuke in a silo until needed, making it impervious to attacks.

But I guess a better location would be in range of narrow straits, basically controlling access from from 200-400km away.

At short range of up to a few thousand meters maybe not but at 100km what would be the flight time?

As for fixed sites, just put the guns on ships and move them to where they are needed.

Even containerise them and move them by road.

 

[jimbob]

As for fixed sites, just put the guns on ships and move them to where they are needed.

Even containerise them and move them by road.

I don't think that would work because of the power requirements. A ship has far more scope for GBFO generators compared to a measley 40 tonne lorry..

Containerised missiles, however are a different question.

 

[catsmate]

At short range of up to a few thousand meters maybe not but at 100km what would be the flight time?

As for fixed sites, just put the guns on ships and move them to where they are needed.

Even containerise them and move them by road.

Assuming launch at 2.5km/s, around sixty seconds, quick calculation.

 

[catsmate]

I don't think that would work because of the power requirements. A ship has far more scope for GBFO generators compared to a measley 40 tonne lorry..

Containerised missiles, however are a different question.

Plenty of options for hiding missiles in containers.

 

[jimbob]

Plenty of options for hiding missiles in containers.

Indeed. Some have even been shown at arms fairs

 

[jimbob]

Plenty of options for hiding missiles in containers.

Also there's the question of recoil. A 50kg shell launched at 2.5km/second is far easier to handle in a turret massing several hundred tonnes in a ship of several thousand tonnes compared to a vehicle massing several tens of tonnes, whilst rockets and missiles can have almost* no recoil.

I'm guessing friction could end up giving a small analogue of recoil in the direction of launch as opposed to against it

 

[Andy_Ross]

I don't think that would work because of the power requirements. A ship has far more scope for GBFO generators compared to a measley 40 tonne lorry..

Containerised missiles, however are a different question.

You would use several vehicles just like a mobile missile battery.
Gun on one vehicle, targeting on another and a generator. or two.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Assuming launch at 2.5km/s, around sixty seconds, quick calculation.

plenty of time to acquire by a ship and for it to take evasive action.
Also as the projectile is not powered it will be losing velocity as soon as it leaves the gun.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Also there's the question of recoil. A 50kg shell launched at 2.5km/second is far easier to handle in a turret massing several hundred tonnes in a ship of several thousand tonnes compared to a vehicle massing several tens of tonnes, whilst rockets and missiles can have almost* no recoil.

I'm guessing friction could end up giving a small analogue of recoil in the direction of launch as opposed to against it

What recoil do you think a rail gun has?

 

[jimbob]

What recoil do you think a rail gun has?

Massive, but I'm sure a ship can deal with that. After all, if we're talking about a 50kg shell at Mach 7 (under 2500m/s) it's less than 5x the recoil of a BL 6-inch Mk XXIII naval gun if I'm reading Wikipedia for the muzzle velocity correctly.

But that's not the same as trying to deal with it in a lorry.

​

 

[Andy_Ross]

Recoil isn't the same as conventional artillery. The main forces are not opposite the direction of the projectile but at 90 degrees and try to push the rails apart.
At the present time a set of rails is only good for a few shots before heat, stress and friction degrade them to a point where they need to be replaced.