|
Get a mod in here and goldmine the old thread for crissake!
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 00:01 |
|
|
HEY GAL posted:what's wrong with our bloody little resin dudes today quote:grey hunter Seems like you already answered your own question! I kid I kid
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:sure they'll be more stern this time! Shots fired.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
And then with the soviets during the late cold war it's five battalions to a regiment, and four regiments to a division! Oh but they're weak battalions, like 30 tanks each, so good luck counting one for one!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:See also the pentonic (spelling) divisions the US tried in the cold war with 5 elements plus support units. Didn't work well. Yeah, pentomic as part of the ROCID program IIRC. British 'battlegroups' didn't work out very well in the 70 eithers for pretty much the same reasons. I wonder what the 1980s Soviet experience with Unified Corps was. Five or so heavy Brigades with a ton of stuff attached, and I think they were meant to wholly replace their Regiment/Divisional structure.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2016 14:44
|
|
|
original poseur
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:Why is the "realness" of the gun relevant? At no point did the British cruiser designs have a gun that wasn't as close to the best AT gun available in that day, with the possible exception of the Cromwell's 75mm. Note that I am not saying that German designers came out of the MBT-70 program saying "what we need is a fuckton of Cruiser tanks like the British wasted time on" but there was definitely a similar element of assumption at work that drastic compromises needed to be made, with the result that it went fast, had a big gun and very little armour except on the front. As it turns out, both schools of thought were wrong and you can armour against the threats of the day without sacrificing mobility or striking power, with the bonus utility of the tank being usable as a drying rack too. German designers came out of MBT-70 thinking "we need to make Leopard II", with the biggest bestest gun+ammo in the west.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2016 02:52
|
|
|
Bagration Bagration Bagration
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2016 15:03
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Were Russia and France the only states that came out well from that war? How about them United Provinces.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:the biggest losers of the war. still full of dutch people even today. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:Thread title suggestion: "Ask us about Military History: Operation Just Post".
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2016 11:05
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:Toward the end, battleships were a lot like modern tanks -- purpose-built to fight each other, and any other uses were incidental. I'd pose that there's way more to fighting with modern tanks than matching them up symmetrically.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2016 11:04
|
|
|
Ballistic Missile Defense; Destroyer, Guided Missile.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
The W. Germans were intending to keep strong tank reserves in the back to defend against those kinds of operations (a couple of tanks divisions at least) but up until the early 80s there were no plans (in northern Germany at least) for any larger scale, multinational counterstrokes. NATO was p much strung out and banking on deterrence first and nuclear warfighting as a distant second.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 00:01 |
|
|
There's also the problem that stuff like AirLand battle means different things to different people: it's a procurement program, a strategy, a doctrine, tactics, etc. all at at the same time. Important parts of it like deep fires through Assault Breaker and various sensor solutions never got adopted IIRC.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2016 21:58
|
|