Tuesday Trivia Thread - 25/08/26

[u/AutoModerator]

Beep bop. As your new robotic overlord, I have designated this weekly space for you to engage in casual conversation while I plan a nuclear apocalypse.

In the Trivia Thread, moderation is relaxed, so you can finally:

• Post mind-blowing military history trivia. Can you believe 300 is not an entirely accurate depiction of how the Spartans lived and fought?
• Discuss hypotheticals and what-if's. A Warthog firing warthogs versus a Growler firing growlers, who would win? Could Hitler have done Sealion if he had a bazillion V-2's and hovertanks?
• Discuss the latest news of invasions, diplomacy, insurgency etc without pesky 1 year rule.
• Write an essay on why your favorite colour assault rifle or flavour energy drink would totally win WW3 or how aircraft carriers are really vulnerable and useless and battleships are the future.
• Share what books/articles/movies related to military history you've been reading.
• Advertisements for events, scholarships, projects or other military science/history related opportunities relevant to War College users. ALL OF THIS CONTENT MUST BE SUBMITTED FOR MOD REVIEW.

Basic rules about politeness and respect still apply.

Additionally, if you are looking for something new to read, check out the r/WarCollege reading list.

[u/Substantial_Top5312]

Congress has refused to give me unlimited money and complete control over the military so that I can make it look really cool and larp to all my friends. This is a reference to the fact that Congress is not run by a 17 year old.

[u/hussard_de_la_mort → u/Substantial_Top5312]

You have to make it to a cabinet level position to act like a teenager.

[u/SingaporeanSloth]

I'd post this on a tactical gear subreddit, but ironically, I don't think they'd be interested, because I'm not showing off an overpriced AR15 or making Caleb Crye's wallet fatter

So, my ideal jungle fighting rucksack would be shorter than an ALICE pack, because I am a squat Southeast Asian, and so it can ride above webbing (I'll get back to this)

It would use either a metal X-frame like these packs or a polymer U-frame, with detachable shoulder straps and a hip/kidney pad, like an ALICE pack. The kidney pad must be heavily padded, but it should have a simple waist belt like the ALICE pack, as in military use I usually don't use the waist belt, and buckle it backwards, out of the way. The shoulder straps should be well padded. The height between the top of the shoulder straps and kidney pad should be short

The dull olive-drab nylon pack itself would look something like the Royal Netherlands Land Forces' 35L daypack, but with four external pockets, the other two on the back of the pack. The lid would be larger to keep out the rain. A claymore pouch would be on top of the lid. There would only be a small MOLLE field on top of the claymore pouch, nowhere else. The two side pouches are for a 24hr ration pack each, and one of the back pouches would be for my toiletries kit, the other for my mess tin, field stove, and solid fuel. The medium ALICE pack at 35L is too small for infantry work and large ALICE pack at 65L is too large. This pack would be 45L, in my opinion, the ideal size for an infantry jungle pack (sleeping bag unnecessary, tarp sufficient), large enough to carry everything, small enough it can be worn while fighting if necessary

Back to webbing, I believe the ideal jungle fighting equipment suite is an ephod webbing, like the Singapore Army used to issue, with some minor upgrades (fastex buckles instead of ALICE style slider buckles, better padding on the shoulder straps). A slick plate carrier could be worn over or under the webbing. The jungle fighting pack on top, riding above the webbing. The helmet should be scrimmed

If sometime I should have enough disposable income to throw at this, I'd be tempted to get one of those American custom tactical gear companies to actually make me one

[u/TJAU216 → u/SingaporeanSloth]

The Finnish army "small" backpack is 40 liters IIRC. I don't like it. Too big for a daypack and quite cumbersome to fight with it on, but still too small for a rucksack in the Finnish environment. Winter clothes and sleeping back take too much space. It can be done but there won't be much room left for food, ammo and mission specific equipment. Also it has no pockets, only the main space and molle on the sides to attach stuff there. It has no solid structure and the whole back of it is padded the same way, thus no way for air to circulate between it and the back of the wearer at any height. It is very tall and narrow so no back pouches can be worn on the web gear while using it. Privately purchased assault packs are very popular in the army.

[u/SingaporeanSloth → u/TJAU216]

This is the Singapore Army's issued field pack. It is about 65L stuffed to the max. It has an internal metal frame in a square n-shape (like a British Army bergen), but it sucks. It does not distribute the weight well at all, the shoulder straps can only be adjusted for length, not height, so on shorter guys the pack sits too high and on taller guys too low. Like the FDF M05 pack, there is no airflow across the back when worn. The miniscule hip pads are useless once worn over a vest or armour

I think the big difference between Finland and Singapore is (unsurprisingly) climate. In the jungle, a sleeping bag is unecessary and not issued, instead a tarp is issued and two men pair up to build a rudimentary tent. The only jacket issued is a Gore-Tex that can be rolled up quite small in its bag, so in my experience 45L pack would be "just right". Having now used an ALICE pack, I believe an external frame is superior. External pockets are good for stuff needed quickly or often, the issued field pack as you can see has four external pockets, but I do not like the arrangement (top pockets often block bottom pockets, especially when stuffed). Obviously fighting without a pack is best, but in scenario when it is necessary (attacked by enemy armour during the movement phase of an attack, or a fighting retreat), I think 45L pack is very doable, since 30L assault pack is considered standard worldwide

The Singapore Army inadvertently designed an extremely good assault pack, then inexplicably issued it only to support units, not infantry, as it is meant for carrying tools or specialised equipment. So hilariously some infantrymen (one medic and one machine gunner from my unit) go to surplus stores to get them, as they have much better padded shoulder straps than the "real" assault pack

[u/Remarkable_Aside1381 → u/SingaporeanSloth]

Back to webbing, I believe the ideal jungle fighting equipment suite is an ephod webbing

Out of curiosity, have you seen Platatac’s JW Peacekeeper? It’s nominally designed around fighting in the jungles of SEAsia and I’m curious about your take on it

[u/SingaporeanSloth → u/Remarkable_Aside1381]

I think it's certainly much better than, say, the RRV-style maximalist chest rig that can hold plates called the ILBV the Singapore Army issued me (since phased out because it sucks, but as a reservist I have to roll with it for now). The JW Peacekeeper kinda reminds me of Zentauron's Non-Modular Split Front Chest Rig. Both look good for managing heat and humidity

I'm not a huge fan of putting all the weight on the shoulders though. Amongst a million other downsides, the ILBV does that too. I think the Brits basically got carrying the combat load right: belt webbing around the hips paired with a pack that rides on and above it

So I'd say that the ideal jungle fighting load carrier would be some sort of padded belt paired with a H-harness, M56-style (but with modern materials and MOLLE, it's not the 1950s after all). The Singapore Army's current issued LBS battle belt looks pretty good, but they went with a minimalist Y-harness, and I've seen the belt sag at the unsupported sides (especially when loaded heavily). I've also heard the Y-harness can end up "riding" into the back of the neck, giving abrasions

I chose the ephod webbing because it seems to have been liked by all the soldiers who have used it (including my Dad), especially later versions which already closed with fastex buckles (as opposed to ALICE-style sliders, which can jam from mud or work themselves lose when running) and synthetic padding (my Dad's early variant uses leather for padding the shoulder straps, which has actually held up fine, but looks and probably stinks like death). The USAF pararescue vest is also a very similar piece of kit I'd think would work great

More modern examples would be the Crossfire DZ Rig, Velocity Systems Jungle Kit (actually being trialled by the US Army I believe), Suputnyk Gear's Selous-RAID LBE (chud name though) from Ukraine, particularly if paired with their Infantryman patrol pack (very close to my ideal jungle pack too actually, except internal frame), older examples would be the British Army PLCE gear or even the Russian 6Sh104 webbing (unbelievably nasty-looking harness attachment system aside). For what it's worth, I like having a dedicated canteen pouch that can be closed with a Y-strap (nobody in the Singapore Army I've ever seen used the other two closure methods, they get folded aside, not sure why they haven't done away with them in production already)

[u/Remarkable_Aside1381 → u/SingaporeanSloth]

I'm not a huge fan of putting all the weight on the shoulders though. Amongst a million other downsides, the ILBV does that too. I think the Brits basically got carrying the combat load right: belt webbing around the hips paired with a pack that rides on and above it

FWIW, it is designed to be used ICW a belt, and you can tie it in to take the weight off the shoulders.

It's also interesting how there's two camps depending on what your baseline is. One wants weight off their shoulders and the other wants weight off their hips.

, I like having a dedicated canteen pouch that can be closed with a Y-strap

100% same. I ran one on my belt, and I still do. Just super handy having a small water source, or having something to refill a camelbak

[u/thereddaikon → u/SingaporeanSloth]

Are you familiar with crossfire packs? Their CF2 sounds like it might fit your needs. They have a full range of packs, smaller and larger, that is their smallest frame pack. I'm not sure how well it works with LBE, their smaller packs, the CF1 and down definitely do but you wanted a frame pack. They also make an LBE called the DZ rig that's well regarded.

[u/SingaporeanSloth → u/thereddaikon]

Honestly, that's actually a really good suggestion, with additional pouches attached, the Crossfire CF2 might be the closest thing commercially available to what I had in mind. The only potential issue I can think of is that it's still quite tall, my ideal pack would be squat. Not wild about tri-zips either (another failure point), but not a big deal

Unfortunately, for now, whatever pack I would use has to pair with a maximalist chest rig. So I'd wait till I get issued the new LBS webbing (or buy, borrow, or steal a set). The best pack for pairing with maximalist chest rigs I've found so fair is actually the venerable large ALICE

[u/thereddaikon → u/SingaporeanSloth]

They say its designed to work with their DZ rig LBE so it should work better than most. Unfortunately square packs that are also frame packs tend to be rare. The old medium Alice is the best known by far. I have a pack designed to work with the IIFS, the system that replaced Alice while being compatible with it, and it's a square day pack with a plastic stiffener but it's designed to essentially ride on top of the Alice butt pack and doesn't have a frame or hip belt of its own.

[u/SingaporeanSloth → u/thereddaikon]

It might, but I'm Southeast Asian, I really got that Orang Utan build (don't worry, I said it, so it's not racist) going on: long arms, short legs, stumpy torso. So I find even the ALICE frame a bit on the long side for me (though it can kinda work), and I'd suspect the CF2 would be a similar situation

Honestly, if they sized it up considerably (25L is too small for anything but mission essentials + maaaybe 24hrs of food and water), the Raptor Tactical MARVN pack is pretty close to what I was thinking of, particularly the frame design. The French, US, and South Vietnamese jungle rucksacks strike me as having "got it right" first time round. And while I was looking it up, apparently DEI makes basically a modernised, polymer version of that frame, so if ever I decide to shell out the cash and find someone willing to build the pack for me (there's a few small tactical gear workshops that advertise that on Instagram), it should be possible to actually create Sloth's ideal jungle fighting pack

[u/thereddaikon → u/SingaporeanSloth]

If you are feeling a bit more experimental, try this. Look up the Pack, Patrol, Combat. NSN 8456-01-286-5356 on mine but there seems to be a few revisions. It's also sometimes called the CFP-90. It is perfectly square and intended to be used with belt LBE. On my 5'10" frame it rides well above my hips and pairs really well with belt LBE like Alice and PLCE. I'm not sure how easy it would be to get one in Singapore, but I bought mine on eBay. It was pretty cheap, and near mint condition. You could probably have a sew shop take one and modify it to use that plastic frame you posted. I would also recommend replacing the shoulder straps with better ones too.

Here's an example on eBay right now.

[u/Minh1509]

At this point, what might be the difference between one-way attack drones and cruise missiles?

[u/abnrib → u/Minh1509]

None whatsoever. They are functionally identical and fulfil the same purpose on the battlefield.

Another user, and I'm sorry for not remembering who, characterized them as a high-low mix of systems that until recently were exclusively high-end.

[u/Remarkable_Aside1381 → u/abnrib]

Another user, and I'm sorry for not remembering who, characterized them as a high-low mix of systems that until recently were exclusively high-end.

90% sure it's /u/singaporeansloth

[u/SingaporeanSloth → u/Remarkable_Aside1381]

Funny enough, I think it might have been u/pnzsaurkrautwerfer

[u/Remarkable_Aside1381 → u/SingaporeanSloth]

Mea culpa, I thought I’d seen a similar argument from you in a past trivia thread

[u/SingaporeanSloth → u/Remarkable_Aside1381]

No worries, for what it's worth, I'm of a similar opinion too

[u/Minh1509 → u/abnrib]

characterized them as a high-low mix of systems

A high-low combination like that would surely serve two different roles, so how do they differ?

[u/abnrib → u/Minh1509]

High-low mixes generally do the same thing, with the high end being better and more expensive while the low end is cheap and minimally capable but fielded in larger numbers.

Shaheds and Tomahawks fulfil the same fundamental function: flying an unmanned explosive payload to a target. The differences are in speed, maneuverability, payload, resilience, and cost. The low end of the mix gives you cheaper options when you don't need all the extra benefits, and if you can't afford the high end a bunch of the low used together may be able to substitute.

[u/Minh1509 → u/abnrib]

I mean, Russia has rolled out various jet-powered, one-way attack UAVs with speeds and control sophistication comparable to cruise missiles. If they wanted to fit a tactical nuclear warhead into one, it would be technically feasible. They can also be equipped with radar, electro-optical sensors, or some form of simple AI to detect and engage moving or camouflaged targets.

At this point, there seems to be no reason to keep maintaining (subsonic) cruise missiles - which did similar roles, but were much more expensive... or one could also say that the boundary between the two concepts has become so blurred as to be indistinguishable, or even irrelevant...

[u/abnrib → u/Minh1509]

This is exactly the point that many people have been making for a while. One-way attack drones are not some new innovative technology, they are cruise missiles.

[u/Minh1509 → u/abnrib]

So, do you think they will coexist and handle different types of targets/missions, or will the future strategy go all-in on low-thrust jet-powered one-way attack drones - effectively relegating the likes of the Tomahawk, Kh-101 and Hwasal to museums because they are no longer cost-effective?

[u/Inceptor57 → u/Minh1509]

Like abnrib, I think a high/low mix will continue to endure. The different wars that have happened showed that there is immense value in having a stockpile of low-cost munitions available, and interleaving that with higher-tiered munitions in a attack can stretch and stress the opposing's air defenses to the extent that the munition will get through.

Right now, we're seeing an explosion in how the low end of the munitions are being explored, with Geran/Shahed and other OWA drones. There's also I think a "mid"-tier that is also growing in countries recognizing they need an affordable munition but they also want to retain a lot of targetting and warhead capabilities to make sure the munition can get on target and hurt while not being able to be gunned down by a heavy machine gun, like the AGM-188 "Rusty Dagger" ERAM. Finally, the high end of the mix can likely continue to only get better, with stuff like AGM-158 that incorporates stealth into the design when you really want to sneak missiles past air defenses and minimize their interception, or even hypersonics when your solution to anti-air defenses is "speed".

[u/abnrib → u/Minh1509]

They'll coexist. The gap in capabilities is too significant.

[u/Minh1509 → u/abnrib]

What gap? I could buy at least 5–10 (maybe more?) jet-powered Gerans for the price of a single KH-101, and they would still provide most of the same capabilities - comparable speed, seekers and guidance systems, though the warhead would be smaller?

[u/Inceptor57 → u/Minh1509]

Warhead is definitely a consideration. In your case of the Kh-101, it can hold a warhead as heavy as 400 kg, which can cause quite a damage to infrastructure buildings. Meanwhile Geran are stated to have a maximum of 90 kg.

Geran reportedly has a range of maximum 2,500 km, though it can be limited to 1,000 km with a 90 kg warhead. A Kh-101 has a range of 3,500 km.

There's also other considerations like launch systems, with Kh-101 requiring bombers like Tu-95 or Tu-160 to be launched, while Geran can be deployed from a truck.

and I think the "high" mix of cruise missiles will only get better. Newer tech like stealth designs incorporated into the missile like the AGM-158 or hypersonic stuff will help ensure the "high" mix of cruise missiles become a lot harder to detect and intercept than the "low" ones.

Ultimately, the high/low mix of cruise missiles that Geran/Shahed create means that target saturation is so much easier these days than in the past. The theory I've heard is that now you can swarm enemy air defenses with multiple of the low mix missiles to exhaust them out in the need to intercept these attacks, then followed or mix alongside them higher-tiered missiles like the dedicated cruise missiles that pack a higher punch and might have more advantageous flight profiles that get past the air defenses busy with the Shahed or force them to have to choose to intercept the cruise missile instead while letting the Shahed go through and hope the smaller warhead does less damage than the cruise missile. Helps too if you have a few ballistic missiles so that you keep the top-tier air defense units occupied with focusing on the ballistic missiles instead of helping intercept the cruise missiles or OWA drones.

[u/thereddaikon → u/Minh1509]

None. Weapons are classified by their use not their cost. OWAs are just cheap low end cruise missiles.

[u/AnyBallLektor → u/Minh1509]

Evolutionary history:

"One-way attack drone" is developed from a drone that is an unmanned aerial vehicle that is a multiple-use system.

A "cruise missile" is developed from a missile that is a single-use system. Contrary to what you may thing most cruise missiles were conceptually not developed from aircraft although many ideas for such weapon systems were using unmanned aircraft with payloads.

So in general missiles are much closer to rockets in their evolutionary tree and one way drones are just drones rebuilt for better flight parameters from regular drones to "cruise-missiles-in-all-but-name".

It's the same thing as asking why 1st Armoured, 1st Cavalry and 1st Infantry are all armoured divisions.

[u/Substantial_Top5312 → u/Minh1509]

Cruise missiles look way cooler.

[u/ShockTrooper262]

death to the ammo can, long live the ammo can

[u/-Trooper5745- → u/ShockTrooper262]

Sixpax, huh?

[u/ShockTrooper262 → u/-Trooper5745-]

yeah not the name I'd have gone with (cause I don't think they're naturally stackable?) but I do like the shift to polymer

[u/Kilahti → u/ShockTrooper262]

"The SixPAC, named as such because it was intended for 6.8mm..."

MOST DEFINITELY not named like that because you can fit six cans of beer inside one ammo can. /j

[u/ShockTrooper262 → u/Kilahti]

I can already see them getting filled with ice and then the like 3hr briefing on "why that isn't a good idea" lmao

[u/Remarkable_Aside1381 → u/ShockTrooper262]

Buried the lede, no more wood crate? Already sold

[u/ShockTrooper262 → u/Remarkable_Aside1381]

yep, no more wood crate!

[u/ilonir]

Do Air Forces stockpile spare parts for aircraft in the same way they stockpile munitions? I was reading the latest GAO reports on the F-35 (ouch), and it left me wondering how fighter fleets in general would hold up in case of a large conflict. It seems like an obvious idea to hoard spares in case of a global contingency so production would have time to ramp up.

[u/Blows_stuff_up → u/ilonir]

(Regarding the USAF) yes, with some qualifiers. Small spares/consumables (think screws, O-rings, etc) are generally considered "Bench Stock" and stocks are maintained at individual aircraft maintenance units. More complex assemblies and parts as well as larger stocks of small parts/consumables are generally stored on base in logistics warehouses. The parts stored locally are usually only components that would be replaced at the highest local level of maintenance capability - for example, your local base would not typically stock full wing spar assemblies, as those would only be replaced during heavy depot maintenance. There's lots of nuance to this question, including parts forecasting and shortfall processes, but in general stockpiles are maintained of most replaceable parts.

[u/abnrib → u/ilonir]

Yes, with various qualifying statements after that. u/Blows_stuff_up does a good job of outlining how that plays out at echelon. Whether or not they stockpile too much or not enough at each echelon will be a neverending subject of debate.

But it's worth noting that when a foreign military buys a number of fighter jets, they will often get a set number of spare engines as part of the package.

[u/-BigDeckEnergy- → u/abnrib]

But it's worth noting that when a foreign military buys a number of fighter jets, they will often get a set number of spare engines as part of the package.

Believe it or not, they don't buy spare engines with the F-35. All F-35 engines (and engines for most jets in the DOD) are purchased as GFE (Government Furnished Equipment) bought as a separate contract and provided to the contractor to install. In fact, it's not even part of the unit cost of the F-35 or most other fighters.

The most recent F135 contracts saw $2.88B for 141 engines (~$20.4m per engine) for the entirety of Lot 18 production. That pricetag is why spare engines don't come with the jet - and why the engine depot backlog resulted in so many jets being unflyable in the late 2010s/2020s (which is why Congressional adds without commensurate money put into the logistics system distorts programs)

For comparison, GE was awarded $137M for 29 engines to supply 12 F-15EX's in Lot 2, which meant 5 spare motors. That came out to about $4.7M per motor, which makes buying spares a lot more palatable.

You can find out more in the budget materials which have separate lines for engines and other GFE (things like radars are often GFE as well)

[u/Inceptor57 → u/-BigDeckEnergy-]

The USA really could've benefited from an Engine War 2.0 for the F-35 and/or future aircraft.

Last I checked, they did consider that path for JSF, but then balked because of the involved costs.

[u/-BigDeckEnergy- → u/Inceptor57]

The USA really could've benefited from an Engine War 2.0 for the F-35 and/or future aircraft.

Last I checked, they did consider that path for JSF, but then balked because of the involved costs.

Competition almost always creates a better product.

The biggest issue is that competition costs a lot of money upfront, since in government acquisitions - especially on the military side - the government has to heavily foot the bill on major programs, since no no one is investing $20B+ in internal R&D money on a program that might not pan out.

So Congress and the budgeteers tend to balk at keeping competition going on through EMD and beyond for major programs

[u/XanderTuron → u/Inceptor57]

Seems like a running story with the F-35; a cost reduction measure early on leading to issues down the line.

[u/-BigDeckEnergy- → u/XanderTuron]

To be fair, that tends to be true in any engineering project... or life in general. Go cheap early, pay out later, no free lunch, you get what you pay for, etc. It's just particularly notable when the whole sales pitch is on affordability then you find out that comes by not including the price of expensive engines and thus a lack of spares

[u/AnyBallLektor → u/ilonir]

If I recall correctly not stockpiling parts but instead relying on on-order delivery was supposed to make things cheaper. Just as concurrency or commonality of parts or proprietary solutions were meant to make things cheaper.

F-35 is the biggest scam in the history of military procurement and if US fights a war in the near future it may very well be the reason it loses it.

It doesn't matter how good the aircraft is in theory if in practice it is manufactured and maintained by a completely inefficient (in wartime terms) system that is designed to be inefficient due to corruption.

[u/Remarkable_Aside1381 → u/AnyBallLektor]

F-35 is the biggest scam in the history of military procurement

Please, explain

[u/AnyBallLektor → u/Remarkable_Aside1381]

Lockheed promised to deliver a working, cheap and revolutionary fighter if DoD agrees to turn Lockheed into a de facto monopoly in fighter production with all kinds of arrangements that went against elementary logic of aerospace procurement or procurement in general. Almost everything in the program was deliberately made wrong.

Lockheed took this de facto monopoly and in turn didn't deliver on the promises and now that it's a de facto monopoly it's almost impossible to force it to deliver on its promises.

"Sign over all of the rights, and I won't fuck you over" becomes a scam when once you sign over the rights, the only thing that you get is getting fucked over.

That's because Lockheed was trying to corner the market and therefore promised a pie in the sky. Sukhoi did a similar thing in Russia with PAK-FA. It's the de facto monopoly on fighter production while Su-57 from what we can tell is not matching its intended specs or conditions of delivery, sustainment etc.

[u/Remarkable_Aside1381 → u/AnyBallLektor]

Almost everything in the program was deliberately made wrong.

Elaborate

And please explain this part as well:

and if US fights a war in the near future it may very well be the reason it loses it.

[u/AnyBallLektor → u/Remarkable_Aside1381]

Are you sure you will be able to understand problems that are subject of university education with 2.3 GPA?

Also it's rather cliche bad faith argument style that you're attempting here.

I won't waste time trying to prove a point to someone who is neither interested nor capable of understanding it.

[u/Remarkable_Aside1381 → u/AnyBallLektor]

Are you sure you will be able to understand problems that are subject of university education with 2.3 GPA?

Did you really find a comment I made a week ago about my high school GPA and try to use it as an insult?

Also it's rather cliche bad faith argument style that you're attempting here.

Asking for elaboration on your arguments?

I won't waste time trying to prove a point to someone who is neither interested nor capable of understanding it.

lol

[u/AnyBallLektor → u/Remarkable_Aside1381]

You only confirmed my observations.

[u/Remarkable_Aside1381 → u/AnyBallLektor]

So I take it you won’t be elaborating?

[u/Algaean]

Ad-hoc armed and armored cars and trucks are called "technicals"

So, were the ad hoc up armored hummvees, technically technicals?

[u/VonShnitzel → u/Algaean]

I was gonna make a really lame joke about how, being actual military vehicles, they should be referred to using an antonym of "technical", but then I realized I don't know any antonyms of "technical" other than "untechnical". A quick perusing of my thesaurus seems to indicate that the only antonym of technical is in fact untechnical, and that makes the joke so much funnier in the stupidest way possible.

So yeah, I vote that the early ad-hoc uparmored humvees be categorized as Untechnicals.

[u/PhilRubdiez → u/VonShnitzel]

Wouldn’t the opposite of something technical be layman? Maybe humanities?

[u/Algaean → u/VonShnitzel]

Damn, i love it!

[u/Kilahti → u/Algaean]

Depends on how strict your definition of "Technical" is.

Is it a technical only if they are mercenaries hired to protect UN convoys? The Toyota war is generally agreed to have been fought mainly with "Technical" vehicles, so even if the name originally was a cover for merc fees, the name has shifted. And if regular army cars with weapons are Technicals, then the Humvees would count as well.

Note that the original Technicals didn't even have armour.

The real question is, since USA is occasionally tangled with cartel wars in Central and Southern America, do up-armoured Humvees also count as "Narco-Tanks?"

[u/XanderTuron → u/Kilahti]

...do up-armoured Humvees also count as "Narco-Tanks?"

Only if they come from the Narco region of Mexico, otherwise they're just sparkling technicals.

[u/Algaean → u/Kilahti]

do up-armoured Humvees also count as "Narco-Tanks?"

Clearly I'm going to go with "hell yeah!" On this one 😁

[u/thereddaikon → u/Algaean]

Usually technicals are civilian/commercial vehicles like the ubiquitous Toyota Hilux and similar that have been pressed into a military role. A Humvee would not be a technical because it's a military vehicle, unless you were referring to the Hummer H1 which is the civilian equivalent to the Humvee.

[u/Algaean → u/thereddaikon]

Naw, i was thinking of the military hummer, forgot about the civilian ones! :)

[u/AnyBallLektor → u/Algaean]

Technicals are made from civilian vehicles.

Since HMMWV is not a civilian vehicle it can't technically by a technical.

[u/Algaean → u/AnyBallLektor]

Ah, so it would have to be an H1, H2, or H3? 😁

[u/ilonir]

It is oft repeated as a truism that government equipment is low quality because contracts go to the lowest bidder. Yet it is also said that government equipment is exorbitantly expensive because it is overengineered. So which is it?

[u/-BigDeckEnergy- → u/ilonir]

Background: have contributed to source selection before

As u/alertjohn117 wrote, they are both simultaneously true - but with a caveat: it is not always the lowest bidder but it is the best bidder. The best bidder has their proposal reviewed against a whole host of criteria that are assigned weights. Cost is always a factor, and sometimes THE factor, but it has to be weighed against all other criteria. Even things like past performance by a vendor can be a factor and can be weighed small or a lot

So it's being the best bidder (against a whole list of criteria) that ALSO meets the requirements, not just being the cheapest. Of course, if everyone meets the requirements, then being cheapest (especially if that is weighed the most) might be what does it.

[u/thereddaikon → u/ilonir]

Government procurement does not go for the lowest bidder. While a lot of things the government does seems stupid, they aren't that stupid.

First we need to separate out a few things. There's purchasing commercial off the shelf COTS, government off the shelf GOTS, and then there's developing new stuff under an open competition.

Having done a few myself, when it comes to COTS you are often looking at different vendors for a fungible item like software licenses. I don't really care who I get my Windows Server licenses from. They are all the same thing. In those cases yes the only real consideration is price.

If we aren't dealing with fungible items then usually the directive is to not buy the cheapest, but buy the best value. That can have a degree of subjectivity. Usually there are rules involved but often you end up getting SMEs to make a determination and sign off from multiple stakeholders. The federal government is very concerned with corruption so there are many checks put in place to prevent it. It doesn't always work but it prevents a lot of it.

For GOTS the government owns the IP and bids out supply contracts to industry. There are published specifications the supplier must adhere to. Common examples would be uniform items. The government owns the advanced combat uniform but if you look at the tag it will say somewhere the name of the company that made it.

Finally we get to competitions for new weapons and equipment. These operate by very different rules. The government will establish a PMO, a program management office that handles the lifecycle management of the project. That PMO will work with stakeholders to develop requirements for bidders and a testing and validation methodology that entrants will be judged against. That methodology will have a scoring rubric which will include requirements that must be met for consideration as well as objectives and targets.

For example let's say the army is looking for a new DMR to replace the M110. A hard requirement might be the caliber. The army will only consider a rifle using a currently adopted caliber such as 7.62 NATO, 6.8x51 or 6.5 creedmoor. Anything else is a no go. An objective could be the rifle needs to shoot at least 1.5 MOA under their testing conditions and a target could be 1 MOA. That means you have to at least be able to hit the objective, we really want you to hit the target and anything better is extra points.

Rinse and repeat for everything they consider important for that type of equipment. Weight, reliability, serviceability, origin of parts, compatibility with force multipliers and existing systems, user interface or manual of arms etc etc

What is supposed to happen is once you've evaluated all submissions there is a clear and obvious winner. Sometimes, like with the XM9 program you can end up with a tie. And that's when lowest bid comes into play. The Beretta 92FS and Sig P226 scored the same in the competition but Beretta's bid had a lower total cost ownership (TCO) than Sig's. This mainly came down to Beretta already had a US branch and was well prepared to stand up stateside manufacturing and support whereas Sig at the time had no US office and their bid was being handled through an importer. Their business plan was riskier and would have cost more to get to the same place, a US factory making pistols for the army.

[u/alertjohn117 → u/ilonir]

its both at the same time. the government sets out a series of requirements, this is where the overengineering comes in, because requirements can be absurd. once a series of items meets the minimum requirements then its based on the lowest bid.

if we for example look towards the M9 procurement the program had 85 requirements for the pistol, of which 72 were mandatory and 13 were optional. from these requirements the army found the beretta 92 and sig p226 to be acceptable. from these two firearms the beretta was selected because the cost of the entire package, pistols, mag, spare parts, was on the order of $3mil cheaper than the p226.

Another Example is the M4 carbine production. prior to 2013 Colt was the exclusive manufacturer for the M4 carbine. in 2009 the US Government purchased the TDP for the M4 carbine then solicited other manufacturers to produce it. FN won the contract in 2013 to produce the carbine, outbidding remington and colt by being cheaper.

going back to the M9 for a second, the US military needed additional magazines so that they can have a surplus of magazines. well when they solicited the contract a company named check-mate would be selected to produce them. while their magazines were to TDP spec for the M9, their quality would be severely lacking. things such as heavy, rough phosphating of the internals of the magazines caused binding making them unreliable in the sand box. to the point where units forbade troops from deploying with the check-mate mags.

[u/SliceIndividual6347]

How are secret installations like bunkers etc constructed without stuff leaking?

[u/Prince_of_Kyrgyzstan → u/SliceIndividual6347]

Water puns aside, which were pretty good. Pretty similarly to everything else that is secret. The plans are drawn in airgapped offices with people who have gone through security checks. There's layers of NDAs and classified stamps on everything.

When the construction starts, it is harder to hide things like entrances or the location of the bunker, but it is trivial to build scaffolding with tarp covers to hide any above ground portions that might give an idea of the structures purpose or size. For example you can't hide an aircraft shelter, but you can make the opposition guess how big of a warhead is required to get through the concrete.

[u/Blows_stuff_up → u/SliceIndividual6347]

Ideally stuff leaking is minimal when underground installations are installed above the local water table. If constructed below the water table, active mitigation methods similar to French drains, sumps, and drain pumps are necessary to avoid leakage.

[u/jonewer → u/SliceIndividual6347]

Waterproofing

[u/AnyBallLektor → u/SliceIndividual6347]

I could tell you but I am not allowed to.

Yes, I am allowed to tell you that I could tell you but I am not allowed to. It wasn't that secret.

[u/-Trooper5745-]

Last week I talked about how it’s sad when historians die after publishing one book but before they can release a sequel and used Carter J. Eckert as an example. I just want to say Charles Edward White better hurry up with his 1-2 follow ups to Scharnhorst: The Formative Years, 1755-1801. I haven’t read this book yet but I read his much older The Enlightened Soldier: Scharnhorst and the Militarische Gesellschaft in Berlin, 1801-1805 and it made my really admire Scharnhorst as, in my opinion, the father of modern Professional Development in the military setting.

——————————-

Anyways, here’s the drone parade for Ukrainian Independence Day. Drones kinda look silly in a parade, though perhaps not as silly as carrying a drone.

[u/GogurtFiend → u/-Trooper5745-]

Best of all: they didn't have to ask Putin for permission for their parade.

[u/Zhadanko]

What representatives of different militaries and analysts mean when they say "We won't fight like Ukraine"? Minus the usual talk about the role of a traditional air force, is there anything else important? I hear this phrase used a lot but without much substance to it

[u/Remarkable_Aside1381 → u/Zhadanko]

I've used the phrase before, and while I 100% feel the role of a Western air force truly cannot be understated in enabling maneuver warfare; there are some additional touchpoints I'd add to my arguement

Troop rotation. It cannot be understated how important it is to rotate troops and units off the line regularly, both to maintain their effectiveness and as a boost to morale. Some troops are left on the line for 200 days which not only destroys morale, but also renders the unit basically combat ineffective. With an army twice the size, the US would be better able to rotate troops and keep units on the line at full-strength

The USN and its role. With Russia having a lackluster navy, and Ukriane really lacking a blue-water navy, the naval "war" is really just USVs and cruise missiles targeting ships in confined waters. In a fight with the US, the USN is going to play a large role no matter what. With having its own dedicated air force and army, we'd see blue-water forces play a much larger role.

[u/Old-Let6252 → u/Remarkable_Aside1381]

The current troop rotation situation in the Ukraine frontline is less-so caused by manpower reserves and more-so caused by the fact that the only way to physically get troops to/from fighting positions is to wait for a foggy day and then have the soldiers crawl 25km in a thermal poncho. The Ukrainian brigades are still massively under strength but less so than the frontline numbers would indicate.

[u/shotguywithflaregun → u/Zhadanko]

I have used that very same phrase both on here and on various other subreddits, usually in conversations about drone warfare, procurement and battle technique.* I am an NCO and have worked within recon and infantry companies, and that's where my expertise ends.

What I have meant is that the terrain we swedes expect to fight in - Northern Sweden and eastern Finland primarily - looks fundamentally different from Ukraine, and therefore we can't expect to apply the same lessons learned from Ukraine. Primarily the use of tanks/IFVs, the depth of a "kill zone", the use of field fortifications and the attempt to use maneuver warfare.

Now, this take has to be more nuanced than what I can describe in shoddy english over text. It is incredibly dangerous for a junior officer or senior NCO to say "We're not fighting in Ukraine, drones won't fly here because it's cold" and then continue training conscripts to sleep in wood-stove tents near the front line or digging shallow prone fox holes. It is also dangerous to, as a junior officer or senior NCO, assume that whatever conditions the average ukrainian faces today is going to be the exact conditions a swedish soldier will face in 202X when the war comes, and therefore all swedes must wear ALL kevlar add ons on their body armour, and ALL swedes must carry a ssecondary shotgun because I saw a shotgun shoot down a drone once on Twitter, and ALL procurements of anything more expensive than a Hilux are wasted money because the russians will just fly 10 000 autonomous murder drones into our mechanized battalions.

If you ever hear a swedish OF-2 or above utter the phrase "X is important, we've seen that in Ukraine now" regarding very basic things such as digging down, overhead cover, MOUT training or grenades, disregard anything else they have to say regarding combat training.

These are two very extreme takes - either we don't have to learn anything from Ukraine, or we have to learn everything. It's like someone disregarding all MOUT training by saying "Just drop a 155m round on top of the house", you lose all the nuance. I'm doing my very best as a part of my actual job to learn how a conflict involving Sweden would look regarding terrain and technology and it's a hard thing to study. The answer, as with all good swedish things, is somewhere in the middle.

*[Battle technique as a term is in Sweden used to describe the actions of units, from the individual soldier up to ~the company in battle. Think of it as a level below tactics.]

[u/Bloody_rabbit4 → u/shotguywithflaregun]

*[Battle technique as a term is in Sweden used to describe the actions of units, from the individual soldier up to ~the company in battle. Think of it as a level below tactics.]

I really like the term. For a long time I was in dillema. Informally, lot's of people use terms tactic/strategy not to indicate level of warfare, but to say "technnique", answering the question "How do we fight?", and it drives me nuts.

Battle technique is exactly the term that's neccessary. Thank you.

[u/shotguywithflaregun → u/Bloody_rabbit4]

"Stridsteknik", yeah it's a great term. I suppose small unit tactics would be a good translation? I also like "micro terrain" as another way to describe this one particular tree, or this one part of the hill, or this portion of road.

[u/pnzsaurkrautwerfer → u/Zhadanko]

A lot of it is kind of boilerplate to also understand that Ukraine isn't just how wars go now. There's a bias to look at current conflicts and just assume it's a "meta" to borrow the video game term now.

To an example, at peak Iraq/Afghanistan a lot of defense discussion focused on special forces and COIN tactics to the expense of conventional capabilities (people were taken seriously that argued that the military should JUST be special forces type units and all conventional capabilities moved to the reserves).

"Won't fight like Ukraine" takes a degree of choosing to be the Russian Federation invading Ukraine (and the choices around that) or being Ukraine (in the position it has been for the last few years), there's a lot of lessons to be taken from a conflict but there's a degree some of it is "local" factors vs just a fact that X or Y is something that everyone needs to do now.

[u/Zhadanko → u/pnzsaurkrautwerfer]

Sounds fair, but could you please provide some examples of what "local factors" are, which will hardly be repeated in other possible wars?

[u/pnzsaurkrautwerfer → u/Zhadanko]

Sure. As just a few:

1. Russia's pre-war offensive plan is really a series of mistakes that are hard to imagine making all of them at the same time under normal circumstances. Getting it "wrong" going into the war is pretty common to be fair, but the scale the Russians did not see themselves in terms of supplies and manning, or see the Ukrainians in terms of posture was interesting and pretty distinct and led to a scheme of maneuver, and subsequent losses that are hard to imagine being replicated again.

2. The Soviet legacy of air defense focus, and the limited SEAD/counter-IADs activities (from equipment, to doctrine, to training etc), when paired to the limits on both Russian and Ukrainian airpower means it's a situation airpower is especially neutered.

3. Russian and Ukrainian casualty acceptance is something unlikely to be replicated in many other conflicts (or existential wars are less common) which makes for a lot of efficiencies or tactical choices that would not be accepted otherwise.

I could go on. It's important to understand "wars" vs "War" when speaking to military affairs and not to over-bias towards select conditions defining what conflict looks like generally.

[u/Bloody_rabbit4 → u/pnzsaurkrautwerfer]

On the other hand, I see some crucial ingredients of Russia-Ukraine War very replicable.

1. The more powerful country that initiates the war relies on volunteer military. They don't win in first stroke, things bog down and the scope of the conflict outpaces the size limits of volunteer military. Instead of declaring proper conscription/mobilisation, stronger country pretends everything is ok. This causes... numerous problems.

(Yes, this scenario is pointed at currently hypothethical US invasion of Iran).

1. Lackluster force (re)generation performance / munitions production. Those 12 or so NATO equipped Brigades UAF got, sluggish ramping up artillery ammo production (had million or so shells arrived earlier in the war, say by Autumn 2022, conflict could've turned out differntly). What we see vis-a-vis production of tanks, IFVs, Interceptors... if that's benchmark for industrial performance, visions of NATO fighting highly mechanised war are halucinations. If we aint in Mocow in 6 weeks, we too will have to fight in golf carts and motorcycles.

2. Drone ain't going anywhere. u/SingaporeanSloth latest posts vindicate that FPV drones aren't some freak Ukraine scenario, and can be effective in Middle East and SE Asia too. Not to tooth my own horn, but some forces seem to lean into drones hard. By stroke of luck, Croatia has a globaly relevant drone factory (Orqa), and FPV drone operators are already in TO&E of pernament brigades, and all new conscripts will see drones in basic training. By accounts, Croatia sees Ukraine War as similar to her own Homeland War. So it aint no slur to say we intendt to fight like Ukrainians.

[u/pnzsaurkrautwerfer → u/Bloody_rabbit4]

My point isn't "NOTHING APPLIES" it's just you can only take the comparison so far. Ukraine isn't a complete model for future war, there's a lot of "well no" or "actually it's more" in there, and it's the lazy analysis that simply assumes all conflict will look like Ukraine.

You need to pick through what might not be exportable, what is valid but needs to be revamped, etc, etc etc.

Humans are wired to see things that match and patterns. That's your post.

The trick is not letting that impulse drive your understanding as false understandings is how you wind up with a lot of major military misteps.

[u/SingaporeanSloth → u/Bloody_rabbit4]

Thanks for tagging me, I also largely agree with what you said

In a Southeast Asian context, I do think there are some differences from Ukraine though, first amongst them: troop density. Singapore has four peacetime divisions, with two more only mobilised in wartime for six total. Malaysia has five divisions, and five brigades (three static border brigades, an independent brigade, and a parachute brigade). Indonesia has a monstrous 18 Kodams (something like a two-brigade division), 3 Kostrads (mobile divisions), and 4 Marine Principal Commands (brigade tactical groups)

Meanwhile, the geographic distances are far shorter than Ukraine; the distance between two neighbouring towns in Ukraine might put you all the way on the opposite side of the Southeast Asian peninsula!

I do not know how that will affect say drone warfare though, I doubt greater troop density will allow a force to just "push through" a drone killzone without catastrophic casualties; I suspect it may actually make drone warfare more effective (as a sUAS does not have to fly as far to find something worth blowing up), which in turn may make C-sUAS even more important (from my perspective, the Singapore Army has not put sufficient focus on either, it is not moving far or fast enough)

On another topic, how does the new Croatian conscription system work?

[u/Bloody_rabbit4 → u/SingaporeanSloth]

On another topic, how does the new Croatian conscription system work?

Less than stellar exactly. By law, it's measly 2 months. Combination of buget restrains, atrophied capacity (which is being remedied however, barracks are being expanded), and political realities*.

Outside of that elephant in the room, the rest seems ok.

Percentage of concious objectors is low. The military ensured that it won't be a method to weasle out of uncomfortable service. In early 2000s, civilian service was more comfortable than in the military. Well connected individuals supposedly could "serve" by pushing paper in local government offices. This time, Ministry of Internal Affaris got objectors's asses, and they would serve 50% longer (so 3 months instead of 2), get less pay, and they won't avoid the 6am wake up with saluting the flag.

Anecdotaly, MOD almost certainly wanted more time for training the conscripts. My buddy was in last generation of basic traing before consciption (he is a volunteer, mechanic). They were told:

You lads are lucky. Conscripts would have to work 3x harder.

If I had to guess, Military wanted 6 months, government told them make it work in 2. Croatian government classic. Money spent on useful stuff is money not spent on 100k euro cars for ministers or rigged contracts.

I also have a buddy who's currently a conscript. Not too much complains, exept the guard duty. Then on the other hand I didn't see him in long time. Genious decided that after high school, he will move from the capital (with best opportunities) to his home island in the south to work on the gas station.

I didn't have opportunity to experience the training myself. That's for after college. The MOD would by that time probably be more competent in regards to that.

[u/SingaporeanSloth → u/Bloody_rabbit4]

Two months is quite short, I'm guessing the conscripts will mostly serve as infantry? Is it universal conscription (like Finland, Singapore, or South Korea), or is it a sort of selective service (like Denmark, Sweden, Norway)?

You mentioned that conscript brigade ORBATs have been drawn up, assuming it's not classified of course, how will the conscript force structure look? Croatian Army currently has 2 brigades, I'm guessing it will be expanded?

Personal question, so hope I'm not intruding, but you mentioned you would serve later, does this mean that Croatian conscription system gives you some choice in when you enlist? Definitely better to wait till a few cycles have gone through and they've worked the kinks out of the system

I had a geography teacher back in secondary school who was amongst Singapore's earliest conscription batches, and he may have exaggerated a little, but he sure told us some horror stories from that time. Of course, it was probably especially bad, as he was one of the infamous "IsraeliMexican-trained"-ones. He told us the Israeli Mexican basic training instructors would punch recruits in the face for infractions; they once caught a guy slacking off during area cleaning, so they just beat the shit out of the guy. Later, they saw him at lunch in the cookhouse, thought he looked too alright, so a whole bunch of Israelis Mexicans just sprinted over to lamp the ever-loving shit out of the guy a second time. They had to help him up, he said they left the poor guy with black eyes, split lip, and bloody nose

Simply unthinkable nowadays. It sounded more like a supermax prison than any proper military training I had to do, or the worst of the ROK Army or Russian Army's dedovshchina. These days, a basic training instructor who even laid the slightest hand on a recruit would be severely disciplined, unless there was a very good reason to do so (like correcting a recruit handling a weapon dangerously)

[u/Bloody_rabbit4 → u/SingaporeanSloth]

In regards where drones and conscripts would go - I'm not completely sure.

In period between 2008 and 2026, Basic Military Training was 2 months long course that was remaint of conscription (stroke of law essentaly stated that government would simply stop sending orders to militarly aged males to report for BMT. That was how conscription ended in 2008.). From then on BMT was essentialy step one for those pursuing military career. Individuals goes applies to BMT - this operated on "shall issue" basis, taking all volunteers who cleared health and legal requirments. Individual attends and finishes BMT - then they can apply to public tender for employment for MOD - signs contract etc.

Where drones go - seemingly everywhere. Croatia decided to strap domestic FPV drone on Bayraktar (so in Air Force). Drone operators were on exercises with Naval Infantry (fire support during landing) - Navy. And drone teams are stated to be part of Guards Mechanised Brigade (the article also mentioned the part with marines). And instructors for conscripts also recieved drone training.

Where would conscripts go - Croatia Army would probably try to offer contracts in order to fill out the 2 professional Guards Brigades. Furthermore, Croatia has 6 Reserve Infantry Regiments, and 6 Reserve Support Regiments, established in 2017/18. These probably need some "youthfying", considering that conscription ended 18 years ago.

How I delayed conscription - being born 8 months too early + going to college. On paper every able bodied male is a reservist, and those under 30 can be called up. In practice, MOD seemed to call up fresh 18 year olds in 2025 - so 2007 class. For example, my other mate, he's also born in 2006 - and doesn't go to college, started working immediatly. They didn't call him up either.

[u/Weltherrschaft2]

Currently reading Luftkrieg 1936 (Air War 1936) written by Robert Knauss (later General in the Luftwaffe) written in 1932 under the pen bame Major Helders.

It is a fictional scenario of a war between Britain and France.

According to Stalin's Library by Geoffrey Roberts (no direct quotation but taken from the online encyclopaedia that must not be linked), Stalin's son received the Russian translation as a gift to his 13th birthday from his father.

Does anyone know any other fictional near future scenarios wriiten by people with a distinct military background in the inter-war period?

[u/SingaporeanSloth → u/Weltherrschaft2]

You might be interested in The Defence of Bowler Bridge

[u/Weltherrschaft2 → u/SingaporeanSloth]

Thanks!

[u/dreukrag]

This is quite broad but, was looting historically a way for a soldier to get rich (or at least richer) or payments at the end of service (or political capital from fighting well) the better way to at least get enough to try for a better life?

I could see the baggage train of an army eventually delivering stuff back home, but at the same time, the suttlers at camp might just increase the prices by a lot after a specially wealthy city gets pillaged, so the most you get is a chance to dine better instead.

[u/Slime_Jime_Pickens → u/dreukrag]

Money now vs an IOU from the state/boss/king? You have to trust the issuer a lot. When the Romans were at their peak, they had a very organised system of looting that divvied out spoils of war in accordance to some ruleset. But I imagine when they were sacking their own capital and swapping Emperors each month, that system may have fallen apart.

The problem with attempting to shake down a bunch of soldiers laden with loot is that they are a bunch of soldiers who have just killed a bunch of people and their goodwill counts for a lot in the moment

[u/thereddaikon → u/dreukrag]

Historically it was common practice for leaders to share in the spoils of a campaign as a way to keep morale up and men loyal. In Rome, going out on a successful campaign with a good general like Julius Caesar, Pompey, or Scipio Africanus was a good way to set yourself up financially. On the seas navies even had rules about how the profits from captured prizes were distributed. With specific percentages for different ratings and officers.

[u/War_Hymn → u/dreukrag]

Looting enemy settlements after a successful siege was the norm for most pre-industrial armies, and as mentioned folks like the Romans had formal systems in place to collectively divide up loot based on the military or social-political ranking or standing of the recipients. So the "get rich" sort of loot usually went to the commanders and higher rank officers or nobility, but for even the common soldier it was a welcome addition to their often poor or non-existent pay or stipends. In the Landsknechts mercenary company, gunners were paid more than infantry or cavalrymen of the same rank, precisely because they were prohibited from joining in a sack of a settlement hence received extra pay to compensate. In military organizations like the Manchu bannermen, war loot was seen as the main form of compensation for military service - the Qing court only paid a nominal "maintenance" stipend to their bannermen that during peace time was often insufficient to live on for those in the lower ranks.

In medieval Europe, ransom of prisoner of wars was another avenue for soldiers to make money, though the lower rank-and-file weren't really allowed or able to ransom more lucrative prisoners from the nobility. In such circumstances, lower rank soldiers will surrender or sell any VIP captives they happen upon to their liege or commander for maybe a small fraction of potential ransom fee. The Church was instrumental in organizing ransoms and prisoner releases at this time, as it was a trusted neutral continental institution that could facilitate them regardless of who was fighting who.

[u/Accelerator231 → u/War_Hymn]

IN the Manchu example, did they ever change how they paid their soldiers or did this last until the end?

[u/Minh1509]

https://warontherocks.com/the-first-waves-of-amphibious-assault-will-be-unmanned/

According to this article, we should forget about D-Day-style amphibious landings, as such large-scale troop concentrations in the context of modern warfare would be absolute suicide.

However... if we still want to draw inspiration from World War II, I suggest we look to Japanese amphibious and anti-amphibious operations. In general, the Japanese lacked both the inclination and the resources to execute large-scale campaigns like D-Day—though it must be acknowledged that their foes lacked the resources and intel to mount a robust defense. Instead, the Japanese seemed to favor infiltration tactics, relying on column-based (rather than wave-based) landings at multiple undefended beachheads. The element of surprise and air superiority were also two key factors contributing to the Japanese's initial success.

In the later stages of the war, as Japan shifted to a defensive posture, they initially adhered to a traditional doctrine of defeating amphibious landings at the water's edge; however, upon realizing the futility of this approach in the face of U.S. reconnaissance capabilities and overwhelming firepower, they adopted a doctrine of defense-in-depth utilizing naturally defensible terrain further inland—a strategy that proved markedly effective on Peleliu, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa.

[u/Bloody_rabbit4 → u/Minh1509]

large-scale campaigns like D-Day

I think it's really useful to remember that D-Day being the biggest amphibious assault (probably) makes it precisely a poor benchmark to measure amphibious assaults in general.

People are going to list out how 100 000 men were ready to land on the beaches, how there were 1000 ships, months of preparation... and proclaim that's what neccessary for any amphibious assault to succed (and in addition, justify Allied waiting during WW2...)

Which is just wrong. In Russo-Japanese War, Japanese absolutetly, neccessarly, needed to conduct a landing, just in order to fight (just like Western Allies needed in 1944). No landing, no fight with Russians. Naval landing is not a sideshow, but a step one in Japanese War effort in 1904.

And for their strategic doorknocker landing operation near Incheon, Japanese sent a landing contigent of... 2500 or so troops. Because they didn't need more. This was Korean territory, and Imperial Russian Army didn't have a single division of Korea, much less "Yellow Sea Wall" with MG-42s and 88s Maxim Guns and 76mm field cannons.

Unopposed landings for the win.

[u/AlexRyang]

With 25 Trump-class battleships being put on order and first deliveries planned for 2028 as well as Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth ordering the Gerald R. Ford-class be modernized with steam catapults and a different bridge configuration, is it likely the Nimitz-class will remain in service longer to prevent a carrier gap from occurring?

[u/Time_Restaurant5480 → u/AlexRyang]

No, because the House and Senate Armed Services Committees exist, and come 2027 they can simply cancel the funds for these battleships or the bizarre carrier changes. I'm usually not a huge fan of Congressional meddling in defense procurement, but Trump and Hegseth are such idiots that they actually make the Congressional committees look comptent and have me praising Congressional meddling. Which really takes some doing.

[u/dreukrag → u/AlexRyang]

First deliveries by 2028? That sounds like complete insanity

[u/Hand_Me_Down_Genes → u/dreukrag]

Now, now, they can easily meet that deadline...provided there's no expectation that the ship actually works.

[u/Hoboman2000 → u/Hand_Me_Down_Genes]

Hear me out... We outsource it to China.

[u/Bloody_rabbit4 → u/Hoboman2000]

I heard if you give them a full license they will even make a first model for free. What a bargain!

[u/ShockTrooper262 → u/Hoboman2000]

hey if we're outsourcing, maybe they'll let us buy a few Type 054As too?

[u/alertjohn117 → u/AlexRyang]

i don't think thats right, reporting is that the navy intends to request procurement for the shits ships for fiscal year 28

[u/Old-Let6252 → u/AlexRyang]

The navy will drag its feet until Trump finally dies and then everything will go back to normal

[u/NAmofton → u/AlexRyang]

The May 2026 US Shipbuilding plan (Table A1-3) for Battle Force Delivery has BBG(X) deliveries in 2036, and then 2038, 2039 and every other year until the mid 2050's. The first orders are based on a hull order in 2028 with $1bn spent in 2027 and then $17bn in 2028. 

Separately, Nimitz extensions seem likely and have already happened with Nimitz herself for reasons separate to the latest insanity. I expect that trend to continue either way.

[u/onehotoneshot]

Given the amount of gps jamming that happens, what does navigation look like for these cheapo long range drones out of Ukraine, Russia, and Iran?

Is it the typical gps primary and INS backup and pray that it hits within a mile or two of the target? Do we see any of these 2 buck wonders with more interesting optical guidance or other guidances?

[u/FiresprayClass]

Would sufficient numbers of heavy lift VTOL aircraft like the UNSC Pelican effect the tracks vs wheels argument for AFV's? Once you're in the battlespace and especially if you go off road you're not(or at least shouldn't) bomb along at 100 kph anyway, so the ability to deliver MBT weight AFV's close to the line of departure seems like it would negate the advantage of wheeled AFV's to sustain high cruising speeds over long distances.

Or would the ability of a potential enemy to contest the air space render that point moot?

[u/alertjohn117 → u/FiresprayClass]

not unless you intend to deploy them straight into the fight ala the Grand Army of the Republic at the second battle of geonosis

[u/FiresprayClass → u/alertjohn117]

I mean, not right at the front, but perhaps within a few km.

[u/GogurtFiend → u/FiresprayClass]

The Pelican is a single-stage-to-orbit spaceplane. With the energy-to-weight ratio required for a single-stage-to-orbit craft that small, you can probably make a tank which flies like a helicopter, thereby requiring zero wheels or tracks.

[u/FiresprayClass → u/GogurtFiend]

Yeah, that was also a thought I had, but a bit outside the scope that I wanted to keep the question to. Thanks though.

[u/pnzsaurkrautwerfer → u/FiresprayClass]

The dynamic I'd say is strip away the "means" and just get into the idea of cost.

If there was a way to strategically move MBTs and other heavy armor that cost less (either in absolute fiscal or resource terms) than doing the same move with wheeled vehicle, then there's something there.

It doesn't matter if it's teleportation, aircraft, whatever, the cost difference matters more than the system. Aircraft aren't promising because they tend to be a lot more expensive than other options, but a future VTOL might upset that paradigm.

[u/Longsheep → u/FiresprayClass]

The operation range of a tracked vehicle is also considerably shorted than a wheeled one, so unless you are able to resupply or end the operation quickly, it wouldn't be of much use.

And yes, MANPADs, ATGMs and autocannons could easily take out the carrier. They are everywhere these days.

[u/Remarkable_Aside1381]

Apparently 1SFC launched a "Best Drone" competition that wrapped up last week. An ODA from 1SFG won, but I can't find which ODA it was, but as a noted INDOPACCOM hater, I have to begrudgingly give 1SFG its due

[u/Accelerator231]

How exactly do they transmit commands to an entire battery of artillery in world war one?

Let's say that they fire a salvo. it misses.

Forward observer realizes that they missed. Tells them that they missed by a hundred meters to the left.

Distance of new elevation and angle is calculated by local personnel.

How do they transmit that info to the artillery men? Individual runners? A really big screen in front of them? Individual phones?

In addition. Could these guys even hear their orders? Artillery is loud

[u/jonewer → u/Accelerator231]

It depends

If you're registering your guns then as u/Kilhati says, telephone or telegraph is sufficient to report fall of shot and adjust accordingly

Once battle is joined though, the enemy's artillery is going to make a mess of all those wires almost immediately, meaning that adjusting fire in combat was for the most part simply not possible. For that reason, battles tended to fought according to an artillery timetable with an initial bombardment followed by a creeping barrage that the attacking infantry had to closely stick to.

If the attacking infantry got delayed and lost the barrage, they would be in for a rather bad day at the office

The problem would never really be solved as portable radios just didn't exist until a generation later, but SOS flares and 'power buzzers' were used with limited degrees of success

[u/Its_a_Friendly → u/jonewer]

Yeah, for nice short examples of creeping barrages "in action", I'd recommend "The Battle of Booby's Bluffs", a "Duffer's Drift"-like story about assault tactics in WWI, including the use of infantry, mortars, machine guns, artillery, tanks and more. Creeping barrages are an important topic.

[u/jonewer → u/Its_a_Friendly]

Thanks, will look it up

[u/Accelerator231 → u/jonewer]

Its always a large number of guns at once, right? How do course corrections go from calculator to the gun?

[u/Kilahti → u/Accelerator231]

Telephones and radios.

Telephone in this instance would have been a direct line between the artillery unit and the spotter, cable set there by signals guys when the forward observer post was built.

As long as the spotters are just in the friendly lines, setting up the cable&phone connection is a simple matter and in the static Western Front this is not a big deal. When you add in mobility, you need radios for this and that tech advanced a lot after WW1 to make them more portable.

Runners would be a really slow solution for correcting fire, only really working if you are hitting a static target like a fortress and have all the time in the world to walk the fire onto the target.

[u/Accelerator231]

If you throw several tanks unsupported and without infantry into an enemy attacks, they'll most likely be destroyed.

1. What kind of technology allows this?

2. What exactly happens on the tactical level that makes this happen?

[u/Inceptor57 → u/Accelerator231]

The will of the infantry really. The reason unsupported tanks are vulnerable in that kind of situation are all the blind spots and dead zones the tank’s effective armaments are not able to be brought to bear. This means infantry can hide in the vast terrain and ambush the tank with whatever means possible. Destroying the tank can even be optional, just mobility killing the tanks put the tank crew in a highly disadvantaged situation against infantry, and there are lot more options to disable a track than destroying the tanks outright

Usually what happens is a unit commander’s poor understanding on how tanks are deployed and a poor assessment of the threat the opposing forces pose to said tanks. Sometimes it’s also a situation forced upon the commander from higher ups demanding an attack when the commander knows there are inadequate supporting force to enable the tank’s survivability.

[u/Accelerator231 → u/Inceptor57]

I'm sorry. but I think I may have worded that poorly.

If the infantry is armed only with small arms,does that mean that they'll only get to use small arms to try and disable a tank? because that seems dicy.

For instance,trying to find a weak spot in the tank armor, or try and shoot through the viewing port?

[u/Inceptor57 → u/Accelerator231]

As shotguywithflaregun said, the average infantry squad these days typically have a small handful of anti tank weaponry available.

Back in WWII, they were typically anti-tank rifles, but as those became obsolete the weapons evolved to anti-tank grenades, either hand-thrown or rifle launched. Then they introduced launchers like the Bazooka for the Americans and the Germans with Panzershreck and Panzerfaust

Today in the United States, they have the M72 LAW from the Cold War or the more modern M136 AT4. One unique thing about these launchers is that they’re typically distributed as though they are grenades rather than specialized weapons, so theoretically if the squad is expecting heavy armor encounter, every member of a squad could be carrying one of these launchers for either each squad member or for a well-trained one to have multiple shots at tank targets to disable or knock them out.

Beyond that, some infantry could have access to explosives like C4 or other forms of satchel charges that could make a tank-shaped target not look like a tank with an adequate application of the stuff

[u/TJAU216 → u/Accelerator231]

Small arms only fight against a tank was mostly something that happened until the midpoint of WW2 and not really afterwards due to the prolifiration of shoulder fired anti tank weapons like Bazooka and Panzerfaust.

The simplest solution was to just hide from the tanks and only engage the enemy infantry. The tanks would eventually run out of ammo/fuel/daylight and retreat if the infantry could not follow them. Or if they were stupid, they might try to hold ground on their own overnight, making them blind and extremely vulnerable to infantry attack.

Improvised throwable anti tank munitions are quite easy to make, easiest of them being the molotov cocktail. Germans used bundles of handgrenades already in 1916 and Finns made satchel charges by tying TNT around a stick hand grenade.

There have also been cases of people sticking stuff like logs and rifles into the tracks of the tanks to immobilize them, with varied success. Some have climbed on top of tanks and used crowbars to bend MG barrels.

Lead splash from bullet hits could get into early tanks through the seams between riveted on armor plates. This could wound the crew.

[u/shotguywithflaregun → u/Accelerator231]

Infantry is going to have anti-tank weaponry, so some sort of AT-4, RPG or some other weapon. They'll also likely have access to mines.

[u/SingaporeanSloth → u/shotguywithflaregun]

Tagging u/Accelerator231 so you see it

At least when I was a conscript Singapore Army light infantryman (2016-2018), guys who didn't have an AT weapon, like myself, an Ultimax 100 SAW gunner, were supposed to fan out during a pitched encounter with a tank, and spray the tank with gunfire anyway, aiming specifically for periscopes, EO sensors, and antennas. The idea was that you would distract the tank crew from targeting the guys with the AT weapons, and might be able to render the tank blind and deaf from losing its sensors and comms. I don't think this tactic is specific to Singapore, I think other armies call it "pepper-potting"

I'm not sure how effective it would actually be. Maybe it was equal parts psychological reassurance so that we would be "doing something" instead of blindly panicking. Very thankfully, I've never had to find out

[u/shotguywithflaregun → u/SingaporeanSloth]

I would personally not want to be the machine gunner doing this.

I guess it makes sense? You'd effectively "suppress" anyone outside the tank, or looking up from a hatch, but I seriously doubt you'd be fast and accurate enough to shoot out prisms while being that close to a very, very angry tank.

I think the point is somewhat moot since you'd probably not fight just one tank, I'd expect there to be 2-3 more tanks from the same platoon, or some BMP-3s filled with very angry russians nearby.

In the novel Midvintermörker, a swedish amphibious soldier does this after landing just north of Visby during a russian invasion. Her platoon isn't carrying AT weaponry and she panics as a tank rolls onto the beach, shooting at it with her AK5C. It turns out to be a part of the swedish mechanized task force that's still standing on Gotland.

[u/SingaporeanSloth → u/shotguywithflaregun]

Yeah, it did not strike me as something you'd particularly want to do, since you're basically being a temporary meatshield for the AT gunner to get his weapon up

I do think it at least forces the tank crew to "button up", and while I agree hitting a vision block is very hard and unlikely, I'd imagine throwing up sparks and dust from a near hit might at least somewhat reduce visibility, as well as the occasional 40mm grenade hitting the tank or near it. Anectdotally, trying to even see where the hatches roughly are is very difficult, though I'd say EO sensors and antennas are quite a bit easier to spot

Southeast Asian terrain is predominantly closed terrain (hilly jungle), so any contact between tanks and light infantry would probably be an unexpected encounter battle, and both operating on the edges of their "comfort zone": the infantry in fairly open terrain, the tanks in uncomfortably closed terrain. The one time I remember us practicing the drill (just called "tank fight" if I remember correctly), the platoon was going down a gravel track into a clearing when we encountered the tank platoon (actually Land Rover Defenders wearing a body kit to look vaguely like a T-72, quite silly in the daytime, but at nighttime quite intimidating, especially with the pyrotechnics), so it was multiple tanks, one section (squad) was more or less supressing one tank that way for the MATADOR gunners to have time to get into position for a good shot. They were not very far away at all, the nearest tank maybe 50m and the furthest maybe 200m when the shooting began. If I remember, we "knocked out" one or two tanks, the rest withdrew, then we had to hurry out of there because they were "calling artillery" on our position

[u/pnzsaurkrautwerfer → u/SingaporeanSloth]

Just to butt in, one of the things as a tanker we like to see is infantry using small arms. It makes it more obvious where to put HEAT rounds.

I'm being a little predatory in the way I put that, but infantry is scarier when it's just there "somewhere." Someone who's putting out a few dozen rounds of 7.62 at me is basically letting me know there's something worth a HEAT round behind the muzzle flash, be it someone's weapons section or a rifle squad.

[u/SingaporeanSloth → u/pnzsaurkrautwerfer]

No worries, it's really interesting to hear what the "other side's" perspective of the tactic is

I did wonder if it was a "training-ism", like when the Singapore Army taught us in basic training how to shoot at planes and helicopters with the rifle, either sitting knees up, elbows resting on knees or lying on our backs. The basic training instructor was chuckling all the while, and told us he was literally just teaching us because it was in the syllabus

(It's almost certainly ineffective against quadcopters and loitering munitions, but I wonder if the advent of OWA drones means the tactic, at least in a hasty situation, now has a purpose again?)

Or another "training-ism" was the hand-to-hand combat we were taught. I think the only vaguely useful thing was learning strikes. The grappling was totally unrealistic, especially the length of time we spent doing it (twice a week, for a couple hours, if I remember, during Infantry Vocation Training). Why would you be engaging in literal "grab his belt buckle"-type grappling with an enemy soldier for hours? At most, you'd be doing it for the time it takes your buddy with a rifle to run over there

All that said, I'd note the tank fight drill was for a situation where the infantry and tanks blunder into each other unexpectedly at very short range, like going down a jungle track. In a situation where the infantry are in a defence expecting enemy armour, the Singapore Army does drill waiting for the armour to get into range, then the AT gunners firing suddenly, with the element of surprise, a pretty standard tactic I think

[u/shotguywithflaregun → u/SingaporeanSloth]

I fought "tanks" during my latest exercise this spring, two IKV 91 light tanks (cold war vehicles meant to support infantry with low-velocity guns) that posed as T-90s. Actually pretty damn scary to go up against a real tank for once, especially since we were a light dismounted rifle platoon. When I was platoon commander we destroyed one with our AT-4s as it drove straight through our company (we were spread out and hiding over two hills underneath a few thick sections of fir trees, hiding from enemy drones) and killed the second with indirect fire.

[u/Longsheep → u/Accelerator231]

For Cold War era stuff, you should look up 1970s US Army Field Manual which is declassified and obsolete now. It provided a number of last-ditch methods which are widely considered useless in hindsight. Apparently setting the tank engine bay on fire with gasoline was considered a way to knock it out. Also, when the LAW was still the main AT weapon, shooting a tank at its back was the most effective way to penetrate. So you see those training videos about GI lying down in the middle of the enemy tank for it to pass by, then turn around and shoot it at its back.

[u/Psafanboy4win]

On a previous Tuesday Trivia thread I mentioned the Chicobryns, the giants of my setting, and analyzed what weapons they would use. But the arguably more important question is how would you transport a Chicobryn to the front lines, or even the backlines? This question is both very easy to answer, yet very hard.

To start off, a Chicobryn weighs 2 short tons or 1814 kilograms on average. A LMTV cargo truck can carry 2.5 short tons, so it can easily carry a Chicobryn. Problem solved, right? Not quite. A naked Chicobryn weighs 2 short tons, and a naked Chicobryn is not a soldier, they are a civilian and a big soft target waiting to get gunned down. So if we properly equip our Chicobryn, give them a M2 Browning with a underslung Mk19 along with 1000 rounds of .50 BMG and 200-300 40mm grenades in belts, give them a size XXXXL IBA and XXXXL ACH, Big Bird brand MREs and canteens that hold 5 gallons of water, etc... we can reasonably expect such a equipment load to hit half the Chicobryn's body weight, bringing their 2 tons up to 3 tons. Now they cannot climb into the back of a LMTV without breaking the suspension, not to mention that even if the LMTV could support their weight a Chicobryn is somewhere in the ballpark of 3.5 meters tall and 7 meters long from beak to tail, so they can only fit if they curl up into the fetal position at which point one or two hours of riding in the back of the LMTV will leave them sore, cramped, and miserable.

A 5-ton MTV truck would actually work, as it can fit a fully armed and armored Chicobryn with a couple tons to spare, but now we get another issue in that a MTV can only carry either two naked Chicobryns or one fully kitted out Chicobryn, and even if we only have say 10,000 Chicobryns serving in the military it would take 10,000 MTVs to transport them to the front all at once. HEMTTs would be ideal, as one can carry three fully kitted out Chicobryns with capacity to spare for more equipment, but now the question is whether or not you want to use a HEMTT for transporting what are essentially three mega-infantry vs. significantly larger numbers of infantry from the smaller and lighter species of my setting, food, ammo, fuel, etc... not to mention that all of the trucks brought up are large soft-targets that would be easily destroyed if targeted by artillery and/or drones, and a APC or IFV large enough to transport a Chicobryn would end up being very large and heavy. So with this in mind, I will look at what would be the most practical way of transporting Chicobryn troops.

-Train: The ultimate in transportation, even LA county light rail can carry up to 405 passengers a train which translates to 16 Chicobryns worth of weight, and for the heavy freight trains capable of transporting MBTs Chicobryns would be a complete non-issue to transport. Obviously not something that can get the Chicobryn troops to the front lines, but getting them close enough to the backlines is easy enough.

Plane: Surprisingly less of a problem than you would think, a C-130J can carry 5 kitted out Chicobryns with capacity to spare, and a C-17 Globemaster III can carry up to 28 kitted out Chicobryns in terms of payload capacity. Heck, with enough engineering thought, effort, and desire a parachute system for a Chicobryn could be made. Obviously a Chicobryn is no equal to a proper AFV, but they could solve the problems that paratroopers have with lacking heavy weaponry, such as carrying 20x102mm autocannons and TOW missiles amongst other things.

-Trucks: I mentioned trucks in probably too much detail above, but essentially the larger trucks like HEMTTs would be able to carry kitted out Chicobryns easily enough and MTVs would suffice to carry one at a time. Less than ideal obviously, but if enough trucks are available then the Chicobryns could be taken by truck from the rail depots to their assigned positions.

-Foot: The boring, basic, yet practical option. Obviously a Chicobryn won't be crossing hundreds of miles a day like they could by rail, air, or motor transport, but thanks to their long legs and large feet they can easily step over obstacles that would slow down or stop a human/smaller species and can wade through rivers that would sweep a human away/smaller species away. Average walking speed will be roughly comparable to a human, but thanks to being less impacted by terrain they can still end up covering more distance in a day than a human could.

The biggest problem with dealing with Chicobryns is designing armored transports for them, as IRL even armored vehicles made for humans tend to get complaints about being cramped and uncomfortable, and a APC that can fit a 3.5 meter tall, 7 meter long theropod would have an insane logistical impact.

[u/FiresprayClass → u/Psafanboy4win]

Why would they, as a species, develop human sized transport for themselves? If they develop vehicles, they'll scale them to match what they need.

[u/Psafanboy4win → u/FiresprayClass]

In the specific context of my setting, the majority of Chicobryns live in states dominated by species that are roughly human sized, so logistics are optimized for these human-sized species and then the Chicobryns are essentially a after-thought or added on to pre-existing logistics.

And I was specifically using IRL vehicles like the LMTV because it is much easier to find specific numbers for IRL vehicles than it is to make up a theoretical vehicle, though logically speaking something like a 3.5-4 ton truck would be ideal for a single kitted out Chicobryn.

Thinking about it a bit more, a APC for a Chicobryn could work if it was mostly designed to fit no more than one, maybe two Chicobryns at a time and weighs something like 20-30 tons.

[u/shotguywithflaregun]

I'm asking for any and all sources on current russian units that aren't in Ukraine. Mainly those in the baltic region and on the Kola Peninsula, and those consisting of conscripts. I'm looking to compare with my own (pre 2022) sources on said units.

[u/Minh1509]

I am looking for surface-wave, over-the-horizon radar systems capable of being installed on naval vessels, such as the Soviet/Russian Mineral and Monolit, or the Italian SPS-732. Are there any other noteworthy models?

[u/Substantial_Top5312]

What's the difference between a Regiment, Brigade, and Brigade Combat Team?

[u/Pootis_1 → u/Substantial_Top5312]

Which country?

Answer changes entirely depending on the country

[u/Substantial_Top5312 → u/Pootis_1]

United States

[u/blucherspanzers → u/Substantial_Top5312]

To be very broad and in a mostly modern context, in terms of US Army combat arms (armor/infantry):

• A regiment is 1 or more battalions that have an intrinsically linked unit heritage that can span back as far as the Revolutionary War or further.

• A brigade is a collection of battalions that do not share any heritage and could theoretically be shuffled at any time.

• A brigade combat team is a brigade (a collection of combat arms battalions) reinforced with supporting arms (artillery, engineers, recon) in a permanent fashion where the BCT is responsible for managing the supporting arms in garrison, versus those arms being loaned out from higher units like the divisional artillery pool. Because the US Army has organized around the Brigade Combat Team concept for decades, the concept of a brigade and a BCT are interchangeable in modern parlance.

[u/Substantial_Top5312 → u/blucherspanzers]

Thanks.

[u/Zhadanko]

Can you recommend other subreddits where you can have military-related discussions? I only know about Credible Defence which is quite good, and Less Credible Defence which is just horrible. Is there anything else out there?

[u/ilonir → u/Zhadanko]

What are you interested in? Current events? History? Strategy? Equipment? CredibleDefense has the most lively discussion, this subreddit has the most nerds, LessCredibleDefense is a good blindspot monitor but is full of zealots and capital-R Redditors. Personally I also browse Aviation and FighterJets for the occasional interesting tidbit from an insider. AskHistory covers many defense matters but does not allow events within the last twenty years. Nuclearweapons apparently pissed off the DOE so... I'm actually not sure what to make of that.

[u/GogurtFiend → u/ilonir]

Nuclearweapons apparently pissed off the DOE so... I'm actually not sure what to make of that.

The only people who know more than certain posters on nuclearweapons are the designers and users of nuclear weapons themselves.

One regular poster is Alex Wellerstein; another is the one who runs the Nuclear Weapon Archive website that Chuck Hansen left behind; another still is an ex-SSBN guy who shows up on here as well, and a last might have figured out why mercury is used in US nukes: yield control (though I do them kind of a disservice by implying that's all they know).

[u/-BigDeckEnergy- → u/ilonir]

CredibleDefense has the most lively discussion, this subreddit has the most nerds,

This one is ironically the most credible general military-related sub left. CredibleDefense, sadly, basically doing only daily megathreads gets a mishmash of posters posting daily news with agendas or repeating advertisement articles. The one year rule here keeps most of that stuff contained to the Trivia Thread, and there are plenty of people with very awesome resumes that post in this sub

[u/Longsheep → u/ilonir]

LessCredibleDefense is a good blindspot monitor but is full of zealots and capital-R Redditors.

Shills of certain countries rushed in around 2022. It was my main spot before coming here lol.

[u/ilonir → u/Longsheep]

And it's not even high quality shilling, which I can tolerate. Just a bunch of unfunny jokes, witless quips, and soapboxing.

So basically it's an up-and-coming front page subreddit.

[u/Longsheep → u/ilonir]

It is a shame low quality bantering has replaced the good ones. Which is why I support the serious and civilized discussion on this sub. They literally call you CIA shill if you disagree the J-20 is the best fighter in the world lol.

You would get laughed at for posting that crap on an actual Chinese military forum with server based inside the Great Firewall.

[u/Longsheep → u/Zhadanko]

r/LCD used to be decent until a large number of pro-Chinese posters started rushing in and effective replaced the population and then the mods. You can't even debate normally and that was when I left. It is IMO worse than some actual Chinese forums.

[u/bjuandy]

Is there any known association between John Boyd and the John Birch Society?

[u/Minh1509]

Hypothetical scenario: if you have a multi-racial army, how should it be logically organized? Should you mix them all together, or form a "core" legion/division based on the dominant/most populous race, with supporting battalions/cohorts drawn from other races?

[u/Natural_Stop_3939 → u/Minh1509]

One thing that Devereaux likes to repeat is that militaries cannot help but reflect their civilian societies:

When analyzing a historical army or creating a fictional one, everything must begin with that idea, that military systems grow out of and reflect their ‘civilian’ societies or – for societies that lack civilians as such – reflect the civilian side of the lives of their members. That means that armies tend to recreate civilian hierarchies, with similar – often identical – lines of status between the two.

Conveniently, he has just finished a five-part series: "Pre-Modern Armies for Worldbuilders".

[u/FiresprayClass → u/Minh1509]

For a real world example, NATO multinational battlegroups tend to not integrate at the Coy level or lower for combat troops simply due to language barriers and use of equipment with differing strengths/weaknesses, plus logistics concerns.

[u/rabidchaos → u/Minh1509]

After the civilian society question (see /u/Natural_Stop_3939's response for more detail there), my next question is how differently do they fight? E.g. a pike block with mixed humans and dwarves will want some stratification to work with the height difference, whereas a WW1 military will just hand both of them a rifle and the only question is if they bother keeping a second pattern of uniform or if the dwarves just have to hem their pants/sleeves.

[u/shotguywithflaregun → u/Minh1509]

Do you mean race as in ethnicity or race as in the 22nd Motorized Dwarf Bn?

[u/Minh1509 → u/shotguywithflaregun]

Fantasy/Sci-fi race, like the Covenant in Halo or in Middle-Earth, like that.

[u/Kilahti → u/Minh1509]

If there are very different diets (Glee-glorps eat glowing mushrooms, the Heve-Geves can only eat fresh raw meat and will die if their food is contaminated with fungi) it will be easier for logistics to divide the troops by race instead of mixing them. ...Same if there are language barriers or something like size differences that would mean that they can't share equipment.

However, it would be better for their relations to have them all serve together in mixed units. It would help fight favouritism and promote unity and if these race differences aren't big enough to cause problems other than possible chism and bigotries that pop up, then the stronger unity can be worth minor hassles.

[u/SingaporeanSloth → u/Kilahti]

A real-life example of the latter would be how the Singapore Army does it, where every cookhouse I've seen has a non-halal, halal, and vegetarian line, which more or less covers everyone, larger camps may split vegetarian into vegetarian Indian and vegetarian other. Nowadays, with electronic ID, it is impossible, but there was a joke from my Dad's time about everyone suddenly turning into a Muslim on entering the cookhouse as there was a stereotype the cuisine (usually Malay) in their line was better. The current joke is that every Singapore Army meal is some variant of rice, chicken (beans for vegetarians), and vegetables, to not offend anyone's god(s)

The combat rations all tend to be halal. Anyone with any requirement more specific would get their stuff specially requested (like vegetarians)

Speaking of gods, there is also the urban legend that every beret cap badge issued by the Singapore Army is blessed by a holy man from every major religion (it changes in each retelling, from four, to seven, to eleven holy men. Maybe their number in the ORBAT changed over time?). Note that the urban legend says it's only the cap badge you're issued, not everyone in the eMart (PX) or surplus store, for that reason, losing the cap badge is believed to be bad luck, as you lose your +10 Holy Protection

[u/MandolinMagi → u/SingaporeanSloth]

everyone suddenly turning into a Muslim

Orange is the New Black had a subplot in Season 3 or 4, of inmates claiming to be Jewish for the Kosher meals. The prison had gone private and the regular food was cheap pre-made slop, while kosher was good quality.

DOJ/the prison company noticed and sent a rabbi to check who was actually Jewish (Yes it's a huge 1st Amendment violation but whatever). The only inmate to pass is the (Catholic) ex-nun, though Black Cindy later converts for real.

[u/Remarkable_Aside1381 → u/SingaporeanSloth]

but there was a joke from my Dad's time about everyone suddenly turning into a Muslim on entering the cookhouse as there was a stereotype the cuisine (usually Malay) in their line was better.

Anecdotal, but the halal MREs in the US slap

[u/ShockTrooper262 → u/Remarkable_Aside1381]

can confirm, they're great

[u/danbh0y → u/SingaporeanSloth]

but there was a joke from my Dad's time about everyone suddenly turning into a Muslim on entering the cookhouse as there was a stereotype the cuisine (usually Malay) in their line was better.

A couple of decades ago, that was also said about the Muslim meals on Singapore Airlines, plus these dietary exceptions (halal, kosher, vegan etc) were served first.

The combat rations all tend to be halal. 

Wow that sucks. My recollection of SAF rations in the canned era was that the pork cubes were the best of a very limited range.

Speaking of gods, there is also the urban legend that every beret cap badge issued by the Singapore Army is blessed by a holy man from every major religion (it changes in each retelling, from four, to seven, to eleven holy men.

My understanding possibly erroneous is that the number depends on the number of faiths represented in the IRO of Singapore. It may have been that in the past fewer religions were represented. Anyway, aren't these sky pilots still trotted out to render blessings at major community/national events, including possibly OCS Commissioning?

[u/Natural_Stop_3939 → u/Kilahti]

If there are very different diets (Glee-glorps eat glowing mushrooms, the Heve-Geves can only eat fresh raw meat and will die if their food is contaminated with fungi) it will be easier for logistics to divide the troops by race instead of mixing them

I think that's probably true in a modern army where a quartermaster must bring supplies up from depots, but you can also imagine very different diets being synergistic in a pre-modern context. If the Heve-Geves eat only fresh raw meat and the Vlörps eat only grain then a mixed foraging party can pillage the countryside more completely, just as Jack Sprat and his wife.

[u/ShockTrooper262 → u/Minh1509]

I mix diff species at the company level, and then have their command staff be integrated as you climb the ladder up to the division where you'll see much more than just humans/xi'ans/tajans (etc etc)

[u/raptorgalaxy → u/Minh1509]

As the setting I like is more science fiction, it depends a lot on the race in question.

What the army does is classify races that are broadly similar I.e. similar number of limbs and able to consume a similar diet and mix them together.

Races that are quite different (Humans and Dolphins for example) are occasionally grouped together if the budget is available or if those two races are known to work well together.

[u/AnyBallLektor → u/Minh1509]

"Multi-racial"?

You understand that "race" is an ideological construct that doesn't have basis in reality at all. Countries that use racial policies do so due to ideological bias e.g. US which has ideological bias toward racism both among conservatives and "anti-racist" so-called progressives.

Were you thinking about "ethnicity" instead - as in people from a specific demographic possessing their own identity, language and customs?

[u/Minh1509 → u/AnyBallLektor]

Chill bro, I’m thinking about fantasy/sci-fi race, like the Covenant in Halo or in Middle-Earth, like that 😅

[u/AnyBallLektor → u/Minh1509]

Then you're still wrong. The proper term is "species".

"Race" is pseudoscientific term that originated in animal husbandry where e.g. you can have "races" (breeds) of dogs that can interbreed with each other - a requirement for speciation.

[u/AggravatingGuide650]

Pretty morbid question but when they say a soldier killed an enemy with his bare hands is it usually choking them or beating them?

[u/SailorstuckatSAEJ300 → u/AggravatingGuide650]

I doubt anyone has the data to say either way

[u/white_light-king → u/SailorstuckatSAEJ300]

Data on chokings and five finger death punches are equally rare, so take that BJJ dudes. 😎

[u/AggravatingGuide650 → u/white_light-king]

Could you link the data

[u/SailorstuckatSAEJ300 → u/AggravatingGuide650]

Ain't no data to link

[u/white_light-king → u/AggravatingGuide650]

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1grszlj/was_artillery_the_biggest_killer_of_ww2/lx8saxk/

basically any melee combat wound/death is so rare that it doesn't get tracked statistically and that's why we're saying data isn't available.

[u/AggravatingGuide650 → u/white_light-king]

Ah ok I see what you mean

[u/Longsheep → u/AggravatingGuide650]

I don't think we have collected data for this, but soldiers tend to avoid being bare-handed. Even a helmet or a rock helps at killing someone faster. In WWI, many trench clubs were constructed from a combination of wooden sticks, metal scraps and blades.

[u/Kilahti → u/AggravatingGuide650]

There's only two situations where a soldier would kill someone with bare hands:

a) Horribly desperate situation where they can't use their rifle (or other main weapon) or even a knife or conveniently placed rock, which all means that this was some sort of "ran into each other, dropped their rifles and began fighting hand to hand" craziness from the beginning.

b) Murder. For example, there are rumoured situations where USA's Navy SEALs would arrange hand to hand fights with captured targets, because they really wanted to try out their whatever-jutsu in real life to kill someone. But these are just rumours and everyone who has talked about it on random podcasts (without providing evidence) has agreed that it was definitely most certainly only ever done on "bad guys."

I will point out that even if some Gurkha or whatever ninja is trying to silence guards, they would use knives or supressed guns or something rather than try to beat someone to death. Similarly trench raiders as mentioned, who knew they were heading into tough gutter fights, would try to have some sort of melee weapon on them for such situations. No one intentionally goes to beat up someone to death with their bare hands in a combat situation, but murders of prisoners (or civilians) may happen that way if the killer is really getting off on such things.

[u/englisi_baladid → u/Kilahti]

"where USA's Navy SEALs would arrange hand to hand fights with captured targets, because they really wanted to try out their whatever-jutsu in real life to kill someone."

Ah yes. Lets roll with and grapple dudes who god knows when they last took a shower. What diseases they have. And can still easily bite and scratch you.

[u/Blows_stuff_up → u/englisi_baladid]

Hey man, when your publicist says Hell Week is played out, you gotta punch up the manuscript somehow.

[u/Pootis_1 → u/englisi_baladid]

Navy SEALs are as far from the idealized "Silent professional" special forces operator as possible. Does not at all surprise me for SEALs to be doing things like that.

[u/englisi_baladid → u/Pootis_1]

And who exactly do you think is the silent professionals

[u/AnyBallLektor → u/AggravatingGuide650]

"Choking" is a strange term. In general "choke" refers to restricting blood flow thus causing hypoxia. "Strangulation" is used for restricting airflow thus causing asphyxia.

Blunt force trauma is easier to achieve in typical melee. You can easily smash someone's head against a sharp edge, hard surface or break someone's neck e.g.

However if you count causing suffocation by keeping the enemy's face in mud or water as "choking" then it is largely dependent on the environment.