Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Bump Topic Topic Closed RSS Feed
8 Pages < 1 2 3 4 5 > » Bottom

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

> Military Thread V20

views
     
MilitaryMadness
post Mar 16 2016, 10:15 AM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,302 posts

Joined: Oct 2010
From: Over your shoulder


QUOTE(KLboy92 @ Mar 16 2016, 08:16 AM)
True enough, and in denser terrain it should do fine. But for the purpose of countering amphib attack? Its no substitute for e.g. NSM coastal battery
*
It would go without saying that the beach and any immediate inland defenses in question would be under heavy air and naval attack even before the landings begin.

As the suppression attacks would no doubt be lifted before the actual landing wave lands, it is easier to embed and infiltrate the coastal area with small, scattered tank-hunter infantry teams on foot with light ATGMs rather than vehicle-mounted heavy ATGMs that would undoubtedly attract the attention of patrolling CAS airplanes supporting the landings.

As in Normandy in 1944, small teams of German tank-killer infantry armed with Panzerfaust grenade launchers did significantly much more damage to allied forces than Panzers who were mostly destroyed on their way to the area by patrolling allied CAS airplanes.
MilitaryMadness
post Mar 16 2016, 11:03 AM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,302 posts

Joined: Oct 2010
From: Over your shoulder


QUOTE(heavyduty @ Mar 16 2016, 10:28 AM)
Helmets courtesy of the Soviets.their old bases were full of these helmets .seemed they left in a hurry
*
Whaat? I would have guessed steel helmets left behind in 1989 would have worn away by wear and tear already. I would rather think that the Afghans based their military steel helmet production based on the old Soviet design and for some reason still produce them today. laugh.gif
MilitaryMadness
post Mar 16 2016, 11:19 AM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,302 posts

Joined: Oct 2010
From: Over your shoulder


QUOTE(KLboy92 @ Mar 16 2016, 10:56 AM)
True that. ATGMs like Metis would work well on the beach-head armour. But like the Argentine objectives at Falklands, I was thinking of going for the LPDs and/or even LCACs/LCUs to deny followup and strand the initial wave...
*
I don't think that will work, the longer you delay hitting the initial wave, the more time it gives the landing force to consolidate. The best time is to hit them the moment the first soldier lands on the beach amid the confusion and fog of war.

Interestingly, Marshal Rommel was fully committed to this approach during the D-Day landings. His superiors ordered for tanks to be held back inland and only deployed to engage the allies when the allies broke out of Normandy. Rommel argued allied tactical air power would neutralize their tanks even before they can be deployed to the area. Turns out he was right.
MilitaryMadness
post Mar 16 2016, 11:59 AM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,302 posts

Joined: Oct 2010
From: Over your shoulder


QUOTE(yinchet @ Mar 16 2016, 11:23 AM)
I would see infiltration of small scouting teams of navy seal/marines into the landing zone.
*
Where the force is expected to land is also can be an indication of where the landing will actually occur. Feints and deception games will try to throw off the defender on where the attacker will land, but generally there are some fixed rules on how to engineer an amphibious landing.

One of the most important thing is the proximity of the proposed landing area to a working port will usually give a general view on possible landing sites. Armies consume a lot of supplies and landing supplies on the landing beach itself isn't sustainable except in the very short term.

That's why the D-day landings were landed in Normandy and not anywhere else, in fact the main objective of the D-day landings itself is to cut off, capture and secure the nearby major port of Cherbourg. Once the allies are in control of Cherbourg then they could properly plan the invasion in earnest. The Allies knew that without access to the harbor the landings could actually fail due to lack of supplies. Even if the landing force could break out of Normandy, lack of supplies would made it very hard if not impossible to maintain the invasion.

user posted image

That's why most large-scale amphibious landings will try to land as close as possible to a working port, to bring in supplies necessary to maintain the landing force.

This post has been edited by MilitaryMadness: Mar 16 2016, 12:01 PM
MilitaryMadness
post Mar 16 2016, 03:32 PM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,302 posts

Joined: Oct 2010
From: Over your shoulder


Hishammuddin to meet Australian defense minister to discuss China moves in disputed South China Sea

user posted image

Malaysian Defence Minister Hishammuddin Hussein said on Monday he will meet his Australian counterpart next week to discuss China's military buildup in the disputed South China Sea and hold talks with fellow claimants the Philippines and Vietnam.

China claims most of the energy-rich waters through which about $5 trillion in ship-borne trade passes every year. Neighbors Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam also have claims.

Hishammuddin said he would meet Australian Defence Minister Marise Payne to ensure efforts are made to "hold China to their promise of not placing military assets in the area".

"If the reports we've received from various sources regarding the buildup and placement of military assets in the Spratlys are true - this forces us in a pushback against China," Hishammuddin told reporters.

Hishammuddin said he would also meet with authorities in Vietnam and the Philippines as, if reports on China's military expansion were true, Malaysia "cannot act alone in stopping the aggressive actions".

"We need the support of other ASEAN countries, and I will continue to (seek that support)," Hishammuddin said. "This is important for us to maintain balance, and to curb the actions by superpowers, whether it is China or the United States."
MilitaryMadness
post Mar 17 2016, 12:33 PM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,302 posts

Joined: Oct 2010
From: Over your shoulder


QUOTE(KLboy92 @ Mar 17 2016, 05:28 AM)
True, but you don't need super penetration to kill a missile team or even ATGM-armed IFV. Metis-M has a 2km range, standard L55 range is 2.5km with older rounds, probably more now. Bushmaster 3km+. Hell even Mk 19 40mm AGL goes out to 1.5km+. Point is, Metis-M isn't that amazing any more, we should shop for Kornet or the Chinese knockoff brows.gif
*
Although a basic HE tank shell can kill soft targets effectively, a good co-axial autocannon/HMG will be more useful in countering ATGM teams. The main gun can only fire one shell per shot, while an autocannon/HMG allows you to sweep the suspected area with heavy rapid fire in an extended burst. This is where a good APS with missile launch detection system can be a life-saver. Some systems can even automatically turn the turret towards the general area of a missile launch.

Also need to remember that unless the ATGM is a fire-and-forget system, the operator of a SACLOS-type missile needs to keep the aiming reticle on the target with the aiming optics at all times from launch to impact. Even a near miss by the tank's autocannon/ HMG return fire would probably enough to distract or flinch the missile operator into missing the target entirely, especially is the target is moving.

Even if the ATGM team is behind some kind of hard cover, the autocannon shells would also be quite effective in penetrating cover like sandbags or building walls that the ATGM team may take cover behind. Also, lighter ATGM carrier vehicles can also be easily destroyed by anything larger than 20mm explosive/AP shell.

This post has been edited by MilitaryMadness: Mar 17 2016, 12:45 PM
MilitaryMadness
post Mar 18 2016, 08:57 AM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,302 posts

Joined: Oct 2010
From: Over your shoulder


QUOTE(KLboy92 @ Mar 18 2016, 08:48 AM)
Hmmm dyou think Western armies overlooked this area for too long? Their SAM units like... tak berapa cukup even including MANPADs hmm.gif
*
Ya la, somehow when mention western SAM all we probably hear are Patriots and Stingers.

Too much confidence in the Air Force perhaps. Probably rightly so given current western air superiority, but but always pay to be prepared for when there is no friendly fighter planes available overhead.
MilitaryMadness
post Mar 18 2016, 10:02 AM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,302 posts

Joined: Oct 2010
From: Over your shoulder


QUOTE(Cabin88 @ Mar 18 2016, 09:27 AM)
i read that US must use the military supply spectacle which is more tough, the glass is not easy to brake and scratch and the size can fit in the standard dust goggle, this is why alot of them say it is ugly and heavy
*
Good ballistic glasses can even resist a shotgun birdshot blast. Current issue dust goggles are smaller and can't fit over glasses though (not like those HUGE 1980s one that cover half your face) so you have to remove your glasses first or you have to use corrective prescription inserts if you are short-sighted.

But unless you are in a middle of a dust storm in the desert just wearing ballistic glasses should do fine. laugh.gif

user posted image

This post has been edited by MilitaryMadness: Mar 18 2016, 10:13 AM
MilitaryMadness
post Mar 18 2016, 10:27 AM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,302 posts

Joined: Oct 2010
From: Over your shoulder


QUOTE(Cabin88 @ Mar 18 2016, 10:23 AM)
these are the newest BCG
*
Still ugly as hell. Quite weighty too, and believe me, the whole thing will start to slide down your nose when you start to sweat. dry.gif

I also wonder what is the vision requirement for the US military, because of course you can't always get recruits with 20/20 vision every time, but at my count I see about 1 out of 5 US servicemen wear some sort of corrective eyewear.

This post has been edited by MilitaryMadness: Mar 18 2016, 10:37 AM
MilitaryMadness
post Mar 18 2016, 10:54 AM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,302 posts

Joined: Oct 2010
From: Over your shoulder


QUOTE(miuk @ Mar 18 2016, 10:49 AM)
Most US military folks will tend to buy their own equipment.

Hence why you see some folks with oakleys or Pmags. Own LBE or plate carriers.
*
Some commercial stuff are simply better than standard issue ones and are worth buying, as long as regulations permit them to be used. Depends on the unit Sergeant though, some NCOs are very insistent on unit uniformity.
MilitaryMadness
post Mar 18 2016, 12:43 PM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,302 posts

Joined: Oct 2010
From: Over your shoulder


QUOTE(yinchet @ Mar 18 2016, 12:26 PM)
They do have long range air defence and it was with nuke warhead. laugh.gif
*
Nike Hercules SAM. Has a 2kt nuclear warhead. Crazy. cool2.gif

user posted image
MilitaryMadness
post Mar 18 2016, 12:54 PM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,302 posts

Joined: Oct 2010
From: Over your shoulder


QUOTE(yinchet @ Mar 18 2016, 12:46 PM)
These is the might of cold war.
*
Not all Hercules missiles were nuclear-armed though. A battalion made up of 4 Hercules launch batteries will only have one nuclear warhead, to be used for extreme measures only. Usual load is a 1,000lbs HE-Frag warhead.
MilitaryMadness
post Mar 18 2016, 11:45 PM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,302 posts

Joined: Oct 2010
From: Over your shoulder


QUOTE(DDG_Ross @ Mar 18 2016, 05:31 PM)
duterte
user posted image
*
This guy's crazy. He openly visits NPA guerilla bases, is suspected of having a personal death squad that murdered at least 600 people, his presidential campaign platform is "I'm going to kill all the criminals in the Philippines and dump their bodies in Manila bay until the fish are fat from eating them". And yet somehow he is a mayor of one of the largest cities in the Philippines (Davao) for the last 12 years and is a strong contender for future president.

user posted image

Only in the Philippines, I guess. laugh.gif

MilitaryMadness
post Mar 19 2016, 09:05 PM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,302 posts

Joined: Oct 2010
From: Over your shoulder


QUOTE(olman @ Mar 19 2016, 02:59 PM)
Ppffttt mai IR equipment will make them stick out like a sore thumb
*
Another ridiculous but effective method of detecting camouflaged soldiers: Use a colorblind observer. They aren't influenced by color and patterns and they can see a human silhouette and movements clearer in a chaotic camouflaged environment.

In the Vietnam war, the US Army and Air Force recruited colorblind aerial observers to detect camouflaged vehicles along the Ho Chi Minh trail from the air. Reportedly they were very successful in this regard.

I read somewhere that on one incident, while en route to one of their patrol area over the trail, one OV-10 recce airplane passed what apparently was an open field. The pilot naturally saw an open field and didn't give a second look, but the colorblind observer screamed over the radio they were literally hundreds of camouflaged soldiers on that open field!! Turned out they were gathering for a raid on a US FOB in the area.

This post has been edited by MilitaryMadness: Mar 19 2016, 09:15 PM
MilitaryMadness
post Mar 21 2016, 05:05 PM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,302 posts

Joined: Oct 2010
From: Over your shoulder


QUOTE(TechSuper @ Mar 21 2016, 09:58 AM)
i think it's not aft bridge per se... it's for heli ops
*
Is it necessary to have it? The Navy version Type 056 don't have the aft bridge part. On Navy type that is where the FL-3000N (RAM) missile launcher is located.
MilitaryMadness
post Mar 21 2016, 08:39 PM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,302 posts

Joined: Oct 2010
From: Over your shoulder


QUOTE(TechSuper @ Mar 21 2016, 05:24 PM)
on most ships that have heli ops, they'll have some sort of bridge just for that purpose. and it does not involved in navigation of the ship.
*
I didn't mean it as a bridge as a control bridge. I figured the structure is probably a covered observation platform to keep an eye of the area behind the ship for extended periods. Some ships do have an observation platform there, but some are uncovered besides a roof and quite open to the elements.
MilitaryMadness
post Mar 22 2016, 08:34 AM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,302 posts

Joined: Oct 2010
From: Over your shoulder


QUOTE(Gregyong @ Mar 21 2016, 10:25 PM)
what the fuckck is that?............Maxim gun ?  blink.gif  blink.gif
*
A M1910/30 Russian Maxim to be exact.

The large cap on top of the water jacket is for putting in snow to cool the barrel during firing. Uniquely Russian I say. laugh.gif
MilitaryMadness
post Mar 22 2016, 09:44 AM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,302 posts

Joined: Oct 2010
From: Over your shoulder


» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «

You're talking to me like I'm 5 years old. laugh.gif

I was saying it is unique because the Russians were the only ones to figure out they need some modification to the gun to enable them to use the one cooling material they had a lot of: snow.

This post has been edited by MilitaryMadness: Mar 22 2016, 09:48 AM
MilitaryMadness
post Mar 22 2016, 10:36 AM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,302 posts

Joined: Oct 2010
From: Over your shoulder


QUOTE(TechSuper @ Mar 22 2016, 10:28 AM)
it's not only the Russ way laa. everyone else who had snow oso use wat
*
I can't recall any other nation having that special snow-cooling modifications to their Maxim guns as Russia has though. Unless you know one? If you can provide proof I'll gladly give you a pat on the back. laugh.gif
MilitaryMadness
post Mar 22 2016, 10:53 AM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,302 posts

Joined: Oct 2010
From: Over your shoulder


QUOTE(SouzaDE @ Mar 22 2016, 10:46 AM)
Every country which US provide "protection" to is paying already. There's no free lunch.
*
Trump only thinks about the generalities.

Japan and South Korea already pay 50% of the costs of housing US troops in their respective countries. Japan and South Korea pay the US $ 2 Billion USD and $ 800 Million USD respectively on an annual basis to house these troops.

8 Pages < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
Bump Topic Topic ClosedOptions New Topic
 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0264sec    0.34    7 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 4th December 2025 - 02:39 AM