Long post.

I've heard this claim a couple of times. It usually goes something like this: "The western front of WW1 was the first time in history where you had a contiguous frontline with constant fighting over hundreds of kilometers instead of a few large battles with the ever present 'small war' (raids on the countryside and supply lines) in between. Generals could no longer tell every unit what to do in sufficient detail, so they had to delegate."

This plays into an even bigger question I've been struggling to wrap my head around as well.

Before what we call 'modern war', a war would often be decided by a few, maybe just one 'set piece battle'. What I mean by the latter term is a battle where 2 or more armies clash (not necessarily in a field, sieges were more common as far as I know), fight for a time and then move on. The time and space of the battle can be clearly defined. Yes, there are smaller raids and skirmishes as well, but there is no vast frontline stretching over many kilometers with constant small scale fighting all the time.

Not sure if I am making sense here. No doubt a lot of people will question my definitions of 'set piece battle', 'small unit tactics' and 'modern war' and I'm not even sure if I did a good myself.

Anyways, one takeaway I got from trying to wrap my head around what happened on the western front in WW1 is this: At no point in history before was any army capable of defending a front of hundreds of kilometers with sufficient forces to prevent a large enemy force just slipping through their lines. For most of human history, armies (however small or large) had to chase and intercept each other for a fight of any scale to occur.

Which brings me another question: Did any of this happen on the eastern front or any other fronts of WW1 too?

As far as I know, the western front is where the most advanced weapons and tactics of WW1 were deployed. At least it's where we saw the first tanks. Did any of the other fronts have battles that still somewhat resembled what we'd expect from the 19th century?

For context I have recently been using a combination of crude math and rough guesstimations to try to figure out what the assault rifle equivalent for a race of Polar Bear sized giants would be, and I landed on a HMG in the 40-50 lb range. Well, I have researched IRL lightweight HMGs, and to my surprise have discovered that aside from a couple of failed American prototypes like the XM312 and XM806, every single ultralight HMG in service today is made and used by China. For example, the W85/QJC-88 only weighs 40 lbs, the QJC-89/Type 89 weighs under 40 lbs, and China's latest HMG, the QJZ-171, is once again a featherweight 40 lbs.

If I may ask, why does China use ultralight HMGs so extensively? What place do such ultralight HMGs have in it's doctrine? As far as I know, the reason why the Western world still largely uses the M2 Browning is because trying to make a HMG light is pointless as any HMG will be too heavy for infantry to reasonably carry, and even the NSV/KORD, despite being a much more modern and recent design than the M2 Browning, is still very heavy at 55 lbs before bipods and tripods are included.

Is there any data, other than inventory records, that China established armies of hundreds of thousands of soldiers in the Middle Ages?

Which of these two calibers performs better as an intermediate caliber for large-scale military operations? For me, it’s 5.45x39, but I wanted to hear input from others who know more about the topic.

Weight

·        5.45x39 (7N6M) = 10.5 grams

·        5.56x45 (M855) = 12 grams

The 5.45 is approximately 1.5 grams lighter than the 5.56 per cartridge. While this difference may seem minor, it can become noticeable when carrying a large quantity of either round. For instance, carrying 100 cartridges of 5.56 will add 150 grams (5.29 ounces) to your load compared to 5.45. Although this may not seem like much, the adage "ounces equal pounds, and pounds equal pain" comes to mind.

Recoil:

Weight:

·        5.45x39 (7N6M) = 3.39 J (2.50 ft ibs) (Fired from Ak-74)

·        5.56x45 (M855) = 6.44 J (4.75 ibs) (Fired from M16)

There is less recoil with the ability to shoot similar distances; what’s not to love about the 5.45?

Lethality

·        5.45x39 (7N6M) = tumbling

·        5.56x45 (M855) = fragmentation

Both calibers deliver impressive wounding effects relative to their size. However, the tumbling effect of the 5.45mm is not dependent on velocity, whereas the 5.56mm requires a certain velocity to fragment effectively. For this reason, the 5.45mm is superior, as it provides more consistent wounding effects.

Final thoughts and disclaimer

Both calibers are fantastic in their roles as intermediate cartridges, and they have been killing people for decades, and their differences are minor. This is just a thought exercise. Furthermore, I know other factors like logistics go into deciding which bullet is better; I am just looking at the individual qualities of the calibers in the grand scheme of military operations.

Finally, I am sure there are things that make the 5.56 better than the 5.45, but when I consider the main benefits of an intermediate cartridge, the 5.45 seems like the winner.

I might be very wrong, but from the impression based on seeing this word being used in context, it seemed to suggest that a unit on the offensive has “momentum” and it would “lose momentum” if the offensive was stalled or called off, and it seemed to be a desirable thing to build up (and maybe conserve?) momentum, but I have no idea how either happens, nor do I know what momentum actually corresponds to.

I'm sorta new to military science and history, and I notice that ifvs like the Bradley can fire high explosive rounds from its chaingun. I notice that tanks pretty much always have more Armour than ifvs, but it seems like an ifv can do far better if It simply had more Armour. The Bradley even has apds rounds to disable the barrel or track a tank. I don't see why they can't just use ifvs and thicken their Armour to spearhead attacks.

I didn't find much information about the VDV's operations pre Russo-Ukrainian war (I wonder why lol), but it seems like their main engagement, which I also didn't find much about, was in Afghanistan, where they were deployed for rapid and decapitating strikes, similar to the ones performed in Ukraine recently, but they were extremely sucessful. Although I couldn't find exactly why, I assume it's mainly due to the fact that the gap between 21st century Russian and Ukrainian army is much smaller than the one between 70's Soviet and Afghan armies. It also seems that their participation in Georgian and Chechnya was significant. My main questions are:

(1) Did the previous engagements of the VDV go so well because of a huge disparity between the fighting forces?

(2) What differs the VDV from other airborne/air assault units?

(3) Why did Hostomel fail, if the strategy employed was essentially the same as in Crimea, where it worked as well as it could have done?

(4) Could Putin, like Hitler in WW2, have negatively interfered in the military planning? If so? How? He had great experience in this sort of operation from Afghanistan after all

(5) Is there any chance that the VDV will somehow come back alive and perform critical attacks again?

I know this may be a dumb question but what role do MBTs provide in combat? I have some ideas but i want to make sure i fully understand what their role is

As in my opinion most if not everything can be taken over by IFV's and APC's

But is it their large armament? Their large cannon allows the use of more powerful HE shells and their ability to withstand things like autocannon fire and, in some cases, hits by ATGMs, RPGs, and Recoilless rifles.

The title speaks to itself, i'm struggling to find difference between those two.

During the cold war in germany..
What were the Nato-Units on the Ground that could do more or less everything needed as a general recon unit like:
Stay Behind Recon/ LRRP/ Special reconnaissance and CEWI !

And which ones would be the most suited overall in a ca. 198X Scenario if not everything is possible for one unit..

West German Fernspäher are coming directly my mind.. beeing the Unit, which would be the most SF Unit the Bundeswehr before the founding of the KSK... LRRP they can do; special recon also.. but were they CEWI capable? They had Fernspähspezialzug, which i couldnt get any info about...

For UK: SAS, same question .. can they do CEWI?
And maybe Pathfinder Platoon.. but i would think they are already a drastic downgrade

US wise, in theory, it could be alot of units.. but first: not many were in germany at that time or at a very fast ready status...
or second they are not on the same level SOF wise as the other beforementioned units.. But i would have thought only Army Units should be mentioned in the german plain so maybe Regimental Reconnaissance Company (RRC), Intelligence Support Activity, Special Forces?

Are there french/netherlands units, which could be capable?

Do you know of more units with such a recon profile and the overall SOF capability and confirm/deny their mission set and training for the mentioned scenario?

broader question what were the reasons for choosing the particular colour for the uniform and why did many militaries have different opinions on it?

Based on battles like Tannenberg I think it is safe to say most Russian generals weren't the most competent in their field, but what were the battle tactics actually like? Did infantry attack marching in dense formations and then human waving as they had done even recently against the Ottomans etc?

I heard that AT rifles in WW2 were still used against pillboxes and other fortifications, even after they had become ineffective against tanks.

Is that true?

How effective were they when compared to other weapons that might be used in this role, such as rifle grenades or light mortars?

Was there a notable difference between the models using 7,92mm ultra high velocity ammunition, the models using cartridges similar to .50 BMG and the 20mm portable cannons?

Greetings!

Over the course of genealogical research, I have identified an individual, variously identified in records as a non-commissioned officer [Unteroffizier] or sergeant [Sergeant, Feldwebel]. I know that in the 18th c., especially during the reign of Friedrich the Great, the Prussian officer corps was drawn primarily from members of the nobility. There is no indication that this person was noble, however, hence the question, did such exclusivity apply to non-commissioned officers?

Thanks! 

–M

With the largest caliber dual-purpose guns still in use being in either 5-inch or 130mm, why aren’t there dual-purpose guns within the 6-8 inch range on modern cruisers today?

For example, they were asked to remove their missiles from Turkey and Northern Italy. Is that something they would have thought about as a "poker chip" before the Cuban Missile Crisis? Had they thought through how to de-escalate from a crisis? Did they have procedures and plans on how to de-escalate or was it improvised?

There has been commentary recently about Ireland not being able to police it's airspace. What does policing airspace mean, what rules of engagement apply and what equipment is/is not needed.

As I understand it, a country needs to be able to detect unknown aircraft, investigate them and present a threat to warn them off.

That implies a primary ground radar (multiple sets if the intruder is stealthy) and then some sort of interceptor capability. Does the latter have to be crewed or would a drone or missile do? How would it be armed? Is a BVR engagement possible or do they have to positively identify the intruder? If they are in sight then are IR guided missiles enough to warn them off?

What's the worst case if a country doesn't carry out air policing during peacetime?

F-111's

Ejection capsules were a big thing during the Cold War, and lots of aircraft designs used them. However, in modern times, it seems that no plane has them anymore. Why is that? Don't they offer better protection for the pilot/crew?

Note I don't specifically mean the Americans leave a dead body with plans to float up to the Japanese to find - it's more of the spirit of idea of feeding the enemy lies and them falling for it and changing their plans from those lies.

Also - who were the 'prized' scientists that they wanted to get their hands on?

I see lots of discussion regarding the land warfare component and how tactical nuclear weapons would be a weapon of consideration to destroy concentrated units on either side.

But what about the naval warfare component? The availability of nuclear warheads on anti-ship missiles suggest it would be an important weapon for use to destroy fleets, but would a Cold-War-Gone-Hot scenario start seeing the mass use of nuclear AShM and torpedoes to destroy the opposing fleet or was it expected to start conventional first with nukes retained for MAD or a weapon of desperation?

This is what i understand about the situation. You can tell me if i'm wrong.

Right now, a lot of Ukrainian units—like the army, Territorial Defense Forces, marine corps, and National Guard brigades—are way too big. Some of the Territorial Defense brigades, for instance, are just huge chunks of infantry with barely anything else.

Take the 123rd Territorial Defense Brigade. It’s got six infantry battalions, a mortar battery, and a few support companies—that’s it. No air defense, no logistics, none of the support stuff you’d expect for a balanced unit.

I’m no expert, but this setup feels like it’s just piling on more bodies without adding the key support elements, almost like it’s growing out of control. On the other hand, some brigades are structured more like actual divisions when we talk about artillery and antitank units.

The 93rd Mechanized Brigade, for example, has three mechanized battalions, one motorized battalion, one tank battalion, up to four artillery battalions (SP Art, MLRS), and an anti-tank battalion. Reminds me to the Russian Battalion Tactical Groups.

A lot of Ukrainian units might have started out as more balanced brigades, but over time, they’ve turned into something closer to the 123rd Territorial Defense Brigade—a big bunch of infantry battalions with few support elements. Instead of replacing losses in the existing support units, they just keep adding more infantry, which makes them look more like oversized infantry brigades than balanced fighting units.

The combat effectiveness of a brigade that’s mostly just infantry is limited. is't it? You need more than just foot soldiers to be effective in modern warfare; you need artillery, armored vehicles, logistics, air defense, and transport. When an army expands by adding mostly infantry-heavy units, you end up with “monster brigades” that can hold a line but struggle with anything beyond that. They’re essentially there to “hold ground” but often need to be reinforced by more capable units if the enemy breaks through. This makes it a lot harder to launch and sustain offensive operations because your offensive-capable brigades are stuck plugging holes instead of advancing.

As far as the Ukrainian Armed Forces are concerned, it sounds like they’re dividing their brigades into two categories: those that are built for offense (like the 47th Brigade) and those that are meant to hold ground (like the 123rd TDF Brigade). To win a war, you need the offensive brigades, but right now, it’s unclear if these are growing in number or if it’s mostly the infantry-heavy, lower-quality units that are expanding.

Holding ground with these “monstrous brigades” is challenging because, without proper support, they can’t respond effectively to attacks and tend to rely on the better-equipped units to bail them out if things go south. The offensive-capable units—the ones you actually need to conduct counteroffensives—require trucks, ammo, artillery, tanks, armored vehicles, recovery vehicles, and a whole range of other equipment. If Ukraine’s growth in manpower isn’t matched by enough of these resources, it’s going to be hard to maintain current combat capabilities, let alone build new high-quality units.

The risk here is that if your better units start losing their edge, either because of equipment shortages or constant patchwork deployments, you end up in a situation where your frontlines are held by low-quality units, and your offensive units are exhausted from plugging gaps instead of conducting meaningful operations. In that case, you’d be expanding the force but not necessarily strengthening it, which can lead to a weakening of overall combat effectiveness.

Compared to modern weapons, the various 75mm and 76mm guns used in WW1 and WW2 don't seem particularly impressive. But guns of these calibers were used for quite a long time to support infantry, so they must have been reasonably effective. Though they probably weren't able to knock down a brick house or concrete bunker in one shot, which is why even bigger guns like the 15c SiG-33 were developed later on. I simply find it hard to visualize just how powerful these weapons were.

How big of a boom are we talking about here?

And why did the British in WW1 use an 84mm field gun (the 18-pounder) while everyone else seemed satisfied with their 75mm, 76mm and 77mm guns?

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.

What was the reason why the JRM (yugoslavian navy) was nearly absent in oposing Operation Maritime Monitor/Guard & Sharp Guard (1992 - 1996)?

Was it the lack of trained/specialized personnel or capability issues or political reasons?

https://youtu.be/847dsPjcPdU

Watching Black Hawk Down and other military films really intrigued me about the rank-hierarchy and selection processes in US Armed Forces (particularly Army) viz-a-viz India.

The terms Sergeant is rather vaguely used, and “private” “first class” etc really confuse me.

Can someone broadly and crisply explain the same!

In India, the Army Personnel, like most countries, are broadly in two groups, appointed as such

• Non Commissioned Officers: Physical and Medical Test with a basic written test.

• Commissioned Officers: Written Test followed by a comprehensive Personality Test with extremely low selection rate. They join at Lieutenant and go up to Colonel, and only some go beyond that up to Generals.