Cooliest/Uglest Weapons v10 - FAL Pride World Wide
999 replies, posted
Gone are the much more civilized days of war, where enemies would let you land on their airfield and patiently wait 10 minutes for you to assemble your tank before commencing battle.
Was just thinking how strange things were back then, like you have to have been relatively close to an enemy and put your own army at risk during conflict. Now wars between major powers would be missiles from afar striking airfields and infrastructure before you can do shit
Even the Brits recognized that having to land planes and assemble the tanks on the ground was a bad idea, they instead planned to deploy the tanks under their own power from Hamilcar gliders
http://i.imgur.com/ZamR1mj.jpg
Or Packet cargo planes
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wbgzENcMJds/Vvg-LiHDEiI/AAAAAAAAJks/7Wxgk5lRLQkeReOePidnEXPAVrfzR-iQw/s1600/locust-9.jpg
To be slightly fair, presumably it'd be sort of a wave-two of an airborne assault, with paratroopers and glider-troops securing the airfield first.
And then to point out why it's still retarded, you're still attempting to land a fully-laden cargo-plane behind enemy lines and expecting it to go well. Unless you got complete air supremacy and taken out all AAA installations for miles around, that'd be impossible.
Everyone seemed to chronically overestimate just how well an airborne landing would go. Airborne assaults are potentially very powerful, but the landing is always chaotic.
Going back to strange things used to kill, there's that rumor about an army Ranger killing a Taliban fighter with an MRE spoon.
Now i know that I'm not crazy for carrying three MRE spoons on my PASGT vest for living history. Those things are deadly weapons.
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/107029/63b7d71f-73e4-4865-9363-65081738dc46/image.png
They call me... Johnny Threespoons.
they call me johnny no spoons
no actually they call me nam guy
apparently wearing a pot helmet anywhere immediately makes you the nam guy.
Gurkha are OP
https://lynceans.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/BAE-Super-AV-unveiled.jpg
The Marines have officially selected the BAE/Iveco SuperAV for the Amphibious Combat Vehicle 1.1 program to replace the AAV
BAE Beats Upstart SAIC To Build Marine Amphibious Combat Vehicle..
This article also contains some interesting discussion on whether the ACV or Amphibious Assaults in general are relevant
Is ACV Irrelevant?
Even as the Marines award the contract for what they’re calling ACV 1.1, the Senate Armed Services Committee wants to freeze spending on the next phase of the Amphibious Combat Vehicle program, ACV 1.2. The program may only proceed once the Pentagon reports to Congress on the viability of amphibious landing in future warfare. Or, to quote the Senate draft: “whether amphibious forced entry operations against advanced peer competitors should remain an enduring mission for the joint force considering the stressing operational nature and significant resource requirements of such mission.”
That’s a long way of stating the big question the Marine Corps must confront: whether the amphibious assaults which the ACV is built for, and which have been central to the Marines’ identity since World War II, have become suicidal with the spread of long-range precision missiles. Land-based anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs) can sink Navy ships hundreds of miles offshore, anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) can kill armored vehicles as they swim in, and RPGs and landmines can hit anyone who makes it to the beach.
Of course, that’s all assuming the enemy is ready for you. The first principle of tactics is “hit ’em where they ain’t.” Modern Marine Corps doctrine emphasizes intelligence and maneuver to put small, fast moving forces ashore at multiple undefended or poorly defended points, instead of a single set-piece assault like Tarawa or Normandy. (Of course, Normandy was selected in large part because it was one of the less likely of the Northern European landing sites. And much effort was put into deceiving the Germans as to where the Allies really would land. Read up on
Operation Bodyguard!)
“Yes, modern ATGM and ASCM threats are serious,” said Dakota Wood, a retired Marine now at the Heritage Foundation. “(But landings would) avoid enemy concentrations where possible….Not every contested environment will be so heavily defended as to make it impregnable or impervious to assault.”
“If the US is to have options to pose dilemmas to an enemy, to seize terrain, to project power in ways that don’t require an airport, seizure of a port, or long overland movements, it will need some type of amphibious assault capability,” Wood told me in an email. “This is what the Corps is working to figure out.”
In this operational context, the ACV’s cross-country mobility is at least as important as its ability to swim, since you’d likely land at an undefended beach some distance from the (presumably well-defended) objective. That’s why the ACV program went for much smaller vehicles than the current AAV, whose bulky, boat-like hull can carry 28 Marines efficiently from ship to shore but then lumbers once on land. For all its size, the AAV is fairly poorly protected, especially against roadside bombs and other improvised mines. The new ACV, by contrast, is optimized to move and survive on land.
Well I mean that's what they planned on doing in Market Garden. Capturing the airfield and then landing in divisions to reinforce the foothole created from it. But as we know a certain man who's namesake belongs to a beloved tin can fucked it up.
Wait, since when did Montgomery get a tank named after him?
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/113069/21cb2269-9117-494a-bdd0-846fd1a6f8a5/image.png
Why not just fly the fucker into battle?
the answer is always p90, except against replicators because those fuckers need high amounts of buckshot
For those bastards i think this will suffice.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_EKulkuIVvas/TJqeSFQaoNI/AAAAAAAAAH0/m73tTDDAr_c/s1600/4184.JPG
Tell me about it. My group wear M1 helmets sometimes and carry M16A1s because they were still both in use in the early/mid '80s , we constantly get asked if we're vietnam army men, often when we're stood next to people in actual vietnam era kit.
When we wear the PASGT pots nobody makes that mistake, but the second we put the M1 on we're suddenly portraying a different era, it seems.
Those eyes, that stubby little mg probiscus, the ridiculous missiles. v nice
http://www.strategic-bureau.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/BRDM-2_reco_Russie_001.jpg
BRDM for friendliest-looking armoured vehicle.
I promise one diamond (as soon as I have the coins for it, anyway) for anyone who will either find or create a picture of a BRDM next to a BTR with a 'don't you talk to me or my son ever again' caption.
You want a baby BTR? Try the Romanian TABC-79. It's literally just a BTR-70 with the middle bit missing.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Batalionul_33vanatori_de_munte%2812%29.JPG
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d7/d4/0a/d7d40aeac125a56053b08e92620f4487.jpg
No man should be permitted this much power...
to be fair, we did that in iraq, though we assumed we had air supremacy at that point. air assaults outside of small special ops things were pretty much suicide missions in ww2, I forget the battle (I want to say Opperation Market Garden) but there was an assault where they paradropped thousands of troops right ontop of heavily fortified germans who just sat there shooting everybody out of the sky, even using captured allied weapons to conserve ammo because the first wave was captured with the plans for the second wave's landing sites
Airborne landings in the world war 2 style worked best when used in the direct service of a larger scale assault. For example the aerial assaults on the eve of the Normandy landings. American and British parachute and glider troops dropped in a matter of hours ahead of the landing. Their mission objectives included the silencing of coastal guns, capture of bridges, cutting supply lines, and generally sowing chaos in the defense lines.
Operation Market was the same, really. Massive airborne assault to capture a bunch of bridges and divert enemy forces, while Operation Garden, the land-invasion, took place in the form of the biggest fuckoff column of tanks the world ever saw just rolling its way through Holland at a steady pace. And it was like 90% successful. The problem is, when your job is to secure river crossings, 90% just isn't enough; and that last fuckin' bridge or two just wasn't ever reached by the ground forces, hence the common quote about 'a bridge too far'.
Wait so the whole reason it was a failure was because of one bridge.
I know it was a failure, but I never figured out why.
The plan was to try and cross the Rhine in one go.
The bulk of the allied casualties were at the final bridges, deep into enemy territory, and they suffered 70% of the operations total casualties.
Essentially, a lot of highly skilled, brave men died for a bridge too far. If they had decided not to try and do the whole thing in one go, a few thousand less would would have become casualties.
I believe the British paratroopers on those final bridges were smashed to pieces by the 2nd SS Panzer Division, which resulted in the ultimately unnecessary deaths of a lot of Dutch civilians.
That sounds more like a tactical failure than an operational failure.
I mean they did capture it after all
According to the excellent movie starring Sean Connery the paras were waiting for the cavalry to arrive and not all of the paras could arrive due to weather. Like the paras were meant to hold it till the tanks could arrive and cement the position. I dunno if all that is true but it is a good movie and there is a flame thrower and it also has polish in it so its a pretty good movie. And its got Sean Connery
They died waiting for the tanks to reach them by smashing their way through the Netherlands.
Operationally, there was a lot of confusion and a lack of initiative by allied commanders on the ground. They didn't move as fast as was required to link up with those paratroopers on the final bridges. The RAF also didn't want to risk their transport planes by dropping allied paratroopers too close to the bridges and towns, so the capture of the bridges was delayed and perhaps more costly than necessary.
It was a bit of a stark contrast of elite troops doing something highly risky, but everyone else being operationally timid, so the elite troops were more or less left to die.
Actually some of those Shermans were just frames built on top of VW Beetles.
Speaking of A Bridge Too Far
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Onmn55qbtgQ
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
Cooliest/Uglest Weapons v10 - FAL Pride World Wide
