db_zero
-
Posts
1,554 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by db_zero
-
-
Not meaning to highjack the thread, but modern archeological research of the battlefield has produced a very revealing picture of how the battle went. And one factor in the Indians victory was the fact that they had better rifles than the Cavalry.
Michael
I vaguely remember this too. Didn't the Indians have lever action repeating rifles, while Custer's men had single shot rifles that had to be manually re-loaded after each shot?
iirc Custer could have brought along some Gatling guns, but opted not to.
-
China is already and can easily increase its sea lift and power projection capabilities-probably in a faster time frame that the US can develop and field a new battle rifle.
The thinking that China has this and can only do so much is the same as the US thinking towards Japan before Dec 7. Japanese pilots have poor eyesight, lack combat skills, their planes and other weapons are not nearly as capable as those of the West, so on and so forth.
The notion they would send a carrier battle group off Oahu and launch a surprise air attack along with a coordinated attack in the Pacific, East Indies and elsewhere was considered preposterous.
The War plan was for the Philippines to hold out and the US Pacific fleet to engage the Japanese Navy in a massive Jutland like battle and reinforce the Philippines.
That whole war plan as well as many other assumptions when out the window on Dec 7th.
China is active in the African continent. You could easily see a small number of western/American units engaging a much larger number of opposing forces and a situation like the one in Afghanistan where survival will depend on a rifle where you may be forced to use it in a way not prescribed by the manual or training.
North Korea has hundreds of thousands well trained special forces soldiers who will launch surprise attacks on key infrastructure targets in any opening phase of a conflict in Korea. They will have the element of surprise, the initiative and will be able to mass superior numbers at a chosen point of attack. It will be a come as you are battle and the South Korean army will require time to mobilize reserves. It would not be hard to envision a situation where for some time the battle could be even if not in favor of the North.
There are many other possibilities, where it could be possible for things to not go the way you thought it would and things go to the lowest common denominator-the infantryman and his rifle.
-
Germany was engaged in a 2 front war. Had they not invaded Russia and focused on just the West things could have been different. They may have just been a recipient of an atomic bomb if things dragged out too long.
Russia is often cited as the reason why the German designed and built the cats. Russia was the main show and where the real tank arms race was taking place. The Western Front was a sideshow. Some contend the Americans were too influenced by the British early war experience and an intelligence failure to realize what was taking place in Russia with regards to tank warfare and paid the price in 44.
All hindsight.
-
And cheap, easy to mass to produce and repair Shermans and T-34s won the day. The Germans might've been better off spamming PzIV, no?
Many have said Germany would have been better off spamming MarkIVs and assault guns based on the Mark IV. Economy of scale production, logistics and maintaining so on and so forth.
It also took 4 or 5 Shermans to gang up on 1 Tiger or Panther with the expectation you could lose 3 or 4 Shermans.
There may have been differing views on all this. It may be one thing if u were a tanker and another if you were in logistics and another if you were a war planner.
-
I have a nice h2h going in dreary raining Italy....
I managed to sneak a 75mm AT gun to cover a sector. They managed to kill a Sherman. Nice. Then they proceed to shell any infantry that came into sight. Great. Then they run out of HE.
I figured that would be the end of their infantry plinking, but no. A team comes into sight and they fire a AP round hitting an unfortunate mortarman. The AT gun continues plinking with AT shell. Some hit a wall and kill nearby enemy soldiers, while other round hit the dirt and kill more enemy troops.
Killed about 7 or 8 enemy with AT rounds.
Does that sound about right?
-
The overall trend seems to be towards the smaller end of the spectrum. Some of the newer personal defense weapon are using bullets smaller the the 5.56m
-
Light, fast and cheap works well...until you run into something bigger, better armored and harder hitting.
Still the quest for lighter stronger materials and other cutting edge tech is worthwhile. The force field concept and the ability to change your ir signature to a different shape is interesting. Whether either will become a practical reality is another story.
Lighter, cheaper, faster has been tried before. Shermans vs Tigers and Panthers.
-
For the longest time we stuck to the 105mm L/52. It performed just fine. Eventually we upgraded to the 120mm Rheinmetall and I would venture to guess didn't regret the choice.
-
Honestly, I have no complaints about the 50 cals at the moment. They work and sounds just fine, but I'm open to improvements.
I'm playing a game against the AI where my Hellcats are spraying Hannomags with 50 cal.
Gotta say the 50 cals combined with hit decals is quite impressive. You can see the bullet patterns and they are pretty accurate IMO. You can see why they tell you short bursts and take advantage of the "shotgun effect" is sage advice.
-
Meanwhile, the flat trajectory is very beneficial. No .300 Blackout will ever be accepted for line issue. It's too loopy.
Carry on...
Correct me if I'm wrong but the 7.62x39 is loopy.
Kalashnikov in later interviews said it was a mistake to abandon the 7.62x39 in favor of the smaller 5.45x39. He said it would be better to further develop the 7.62x39.
A design based on the reliability of the AK using the .300 Blackout, with modern sighting systems and redesigned quick change magazine.
Throw in the ability to barbie doll it out like a M4 and use case less ammo? That might get interesting.
Get even more creative and figure out how to take the heat generated from the ammo and recycle that into powering up/recharging powered sighting systems and an outlet for the myriad of battery powered devices the younger generation grew up with? Heck why not also follow the Israelis and throw in a bottle opener and wire cutter when they took the best features of the AK and 5.56 when developing the Galil.
The .300 in its current form may be loopy, but that can be corrected. Perhaps look into a 6.5 or 7mm and use cold forged heavy barrels.
Where there is a will there is a way...
-
When you get done with Normandy, try out Market Garden. Played many of the battles h2h and they are fun and I'm now playing some of the h2h battles I played against the AI.
As the allieds some of the battles are stacked against you, but being you're playing against the AI its a good challenge.
Other battles like "All Around Defense" is fun to see just how badly you can beat up the AI!
The Campaign in MG is also good. Starts off easy and gets harder as you progress.
-
I'm curious if the 5.56 case less project is a success and a usable weapon comes out of it will the 7.62 go away and the 5.56 will be standard across the board.
The 7.62/7.62×39 vs 5.56 has been debated to death. Some say something in between like 6.5 or 7mm cartridge could be the answer, that is appearing to be unlikely.
-
Poland of all countries is working on the tank of the future.
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/is-polands-stealthy-pl-01-the-tank-of-the-future-1554395391
-
db zero i seem to recall reading an article in a magazine about a .22lr weapon that someone had hucked at the military as a suppressive weapon, it had 2 barrels and was a belt fed.
and that tidbit of stopping most pistol and rifle ammo doesn't make sense, if you mean .22lr could penetrate it. Do you mean a .22 caliber round like 5.56?
It was 22lr. Sounds very counter intuitive. Ill see this person in a month or 2 and see if I can find out more. He may have been referring to the one particular area. Some kevlar will be penetrated by .22 and a knife, while other grades stops both iirc.
At the time I wasn't paying too much attention and was already labeled a smart*** for mentioning 50 cal and being stopped by the armor on this vehicle.
-
The weight concerns regarding a move back to 7.62 is one of the reasons why case less ammo is attractive. You save 25% in weight by moving to case less ammo.
It is a big upfront commitment. I don't know if there is a willingness to make that sort of commitment.
Maybe Army and Air Force can play a football game. Army wins the Air Force gives up 2 F-35s to fund a new battle rifle and case less ammo. Not sure what the Army can offer if AF wins...
-
For the time being tanks are at a tipping point, but that will change.
Look up graphine. Far lighter than kevlar, yet hundreds of times stronger. Its already been tested as a kevlar replacement. Work is being done to replicate spider webs and mass produce it. Spider webs is one of the strongest materials out there. Smart metals have already been demoed and how long before someone demos self repairing smart metal?
A lot of this will find its way to making better fighting vehicles. Levitation is somewhere down the road too.
-
I wouldn't write off the tank. It does seem to be moving in a similar direction as the Navy after the Falklands War that demonstrated the vulnerability of warships to guided missiles. All sorts of defensive systems were developed and deployed to defend ships from missiles and now tanks are sprouting up defensive systems to protect itself.
IMO the real revolution is the microchip. This allows smarter ATGMs that target tanks where their most vulnerable-the top where protection is weakest. Giving the top as good protection as everywhere else is probably too expensive and would add too much weight.
I do expect to see some sort of laser defense.
Meanwhile they are working on force fields to protect tanks.
-
Are you familiar with the https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGsFfkw1BdQ?
That's nuts. Bonnie and Clyde would loved to have one of those. You hear stories of how the 30-06 from a BAR would go through cars and oak trees like it was paper.
Someone mentioned the one of the main things is to lay down suppressive fire. I've wondered if any military looked at .22 cal. You can carry thousands of rounds and a well designed system could lay down a lot of lead.
It might even be possible to create a man portable mini Gatling gun with 3 to 6 barrels and if you had something like a back pack feed system you could potentially have something that could actually lay down thousands of rounds in seconds and maintain that rate of fire.
I was shown a GMC pickup truck that has ballistic protection. It could stop most pistol and rifle ammo, but a .22 could penetrate it. I think some of the newer PSD systems use a smaller bullet than a 5.56 and are designed to penetrate body armor.
Put a full metal jacket on a .22 and you probably want to make it center fire as opposed to rim fire and use cleaner burning powder.
Here is a little 22 Browning.
-
Since upgrading to 3.11 it seems that infantry is more potent against tanks. I've had a few of tanks easily immobilized by grenade chucking infantry.
I've also managed to immobilize then kill a Tiger with grenade tossing infantry. I may have immobilized more tanks, but can't verify at the moment.
-
Some interesting stuff from DARPA on tank design: http://www.futuretimeline.net/blog/2014/08/20.htm#.VHtdkDGUdEM
They looks like something NOD would pump out in Command and Conquer.
-
One other thing to consider. I understand the reasons many valid as to why one may want to keep the status quo and that the incident with the M4 is an isolated one.
On the other hand while unlikely North Korea and a possible confrontation with China and its huge land army can't be ruled out completely. Both know our capabilities and both will do all they can to counter any advantages we have should conflict occur. You never get the war you want and it never goes the way you plan or want it to and it oftentimes comes down to the lowest common denominator-the infantryman and his rifle.
You would think that in that sort of situation against an adversary with a huge manpower advantage and in a region of conflict where they will be able to take advantage of their manpower advantage, having a battle rifle that is very hard hitting and can be fired to excess without reliability issues would be a very desirable tool to have.
Honestly I don't know if the one fatal flaw described in the article is a major one or an isolated one.
-
The essential problem with the "hail of bullets" suppressive fire idea in a modern, "1st World" vs. "1st World" battlefield is that the guy putting out said "hail of bullets" will probably die very quickly.
For infantry on the modern battlefield, stealth and concealment is the name of the game. If you can be seen, you can be killed in 1,000 different ways by distant weapons you probably have no awareness of. And sitting in one spot spewing out lead from a belt-fed MG is a great way to get seen.
So infantry's job has shifted. It's more about staying hidden, spotting the enemy and then calling in the hurt from any of a myriad of sources on the other end of a radio link than it is sitting there and duking it out in a protracted small arms fight.
Again, it's a shift in emphasis, not a total change. Small arms firefights will still happen and the belt-fed MG is still an important part of the toolkit. It's just not needed quite as much as it used to be, and arguably it's worth carrying a few less big, heavy SAWs, in exchange for a little more stealth and mobility.
I agree and disagree about the shift in the infantry's job. I think there will be times when they will be put into roles and situations where they will have to behave and use tactics like SWAT teams. They will be forced to deliberately engage and required to use precise and minimum deadly force. Sitting back and calling in firepower on a radio will not be an option as any sort of collateral will be seen as completely counterproductive.
The world is becoming more urbanized and population is shifting to urban centers. Many adversaries find crowded urbanized areas desirable to operate from.
There are specialized units to operate in these situations, but they can't be everywhere and I think the military/infantry is going to be tasked with more and expected to do more in different ways.
One thing I hear about the desirably of a bigger round than the 5.56 is people instinctively take cover when shot at and rounds like the 7.62x39 or 300 AC will penetrate cover better and in urban situations where there is plenty of heavy cover bigger is better.
On another note, while the military is sticking with the M4/5.56, it sounds like they are going to replace 400,000 or so pistols with a new handgun design using the 45ACP.
This is in contrast to LE who are in the process of moving away from the 40 S&W and larger calibers to the 9mm. LE has discovered rounds like the 40 cause premature wear and is difficult for many to handle well. Modern bonded expanding ammo has made the 9mm suitable to LE needs.
The military who by convention is forbidden to use expanding ammo has realized 9mm ball ammo has flaws, so it may be back to the old faithful 45.
-
Some Bradleys come with APS, a near-future protection system equivalent to Trophy. (Tests have been conducted but unrestricted facts on the ground are scarce). I would not want to be standing under Bradley when that thing is activated. All Bradleys (I think) come with a laser warning receiver which pops an automatic cloud of smoke and allows the vehicle to escape.
I wonder what the manual (SOP) in real life states regarding this-deactivate when infantry dismounts. Re-activate when they are mounted.
Perhaps in the future instead of having an on and off command as requested by playtesters it could be automatically on when the infantry is mounted and turned off when they dismount.
-
Yes the AI needs improvement, but until we get intelligent robots/androids to play with us the best AI upgrade is another human.
I have a dogfight going on h2h. Its my 1 Sherman and infantry vs a Tiger and MarkIV that's been going on for 4 turns. Its literally a bumper to bumper dogfight with trees and smoke.
Believe me I've been cursing and pounding my fists every replay cursing at my tank crew, saying ********* fire! I can only wonder what the reaction of my opponent is...
I agree with OP. User made Campaigns and battles are fun. QB's not so much, but I haven't tries out any with the latest updates applied.
Man vs Tank
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
In other CM games infantry with no AT weapons have a good chance of disabling and destroying tanks with grenades. Sorta like caveman vs Woolly Mammoth.
Is that the case in Black Sea?