As far as I am aware, the guns mounted on basically all fighter aircraft are rigidly fixed in place, only shooting straight forward along the one vector extending out ahead of the aircraft on which they are sighted. In order to adjust the aim of the gun at all, the heading of the whole aircraft itself must shift.

Are there any relatively modern fighter or attack aircraft for which this is not the case i.e. that have any even 'low off-boresight' gun targeting capability? I wouldn't expect to learn of any gimbal-mounted guns like on attack helicopters or old bombers' turrets, but are there any aircraft where (for example) the gun is aim-able independent of the aircraft's heading at least within a limited cone around the boresight vector? It seems possible that for dogfights (in the era where they were still expected to often happen and involve gun kills) or for attack runs, even relatively low-off boresight gun targeting, especially with some amount of computer/radar control, could have been an advantage.

I assume its an uncommon (or never) seen feature because of the added weight, complexity, etc. for what is certainly at least today the 'sidearm' of fighters. But as a complete layman I'm wondering if this was ever a feature of any fighter or attack aircraft in history.

Hi everyone. I wonder how can one assess a "real" industrial possibility of a country/an alliance in case of war? I will clarify my question

At the outbreak of Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 it was a very widespread idea that although Russia had advantages in short terms, the West will just help Ukraine win the war in longer terms due to West's much larger industrial capacity.

Different GDP figures in relation to each other were given, but I wonder whether one can try to assess country's industrial capacity with these statistics.

It seems that Ukrainians are still undersupplied of artillery shells, and all the EU countries combined can not deliver enough ammunition, whereas sanctioned Russians could outmatch them in this regard, so in fact Russia wins war of attrition, not Ukraine

So I think my question can be this: Why did Ukraine's partners failed to bring much more artillery shells then Russians? I invoke this question not to stir some discussion shaped by politics only, but trying to understand some economics behind it also. One can argue that NATO just did not try to produce these shells although they claimed otherwise, it was just a hypocrisy; but this answer seems to be a bit dull: with industrial potential much larger than Russia's one, it wouldn't take much commitment anyway.

P.S. If I am wrong in my assumptions (like whether Russia actually produced more artillery shells then Ukraine) feel free to correct me, because nowadays the media are just so full of contradictory and unreliable information it is just very hard to navigate oneself. And sorry for many mistakes in English, I'm not a native speaker

I just read how a French Colonel, Roger Trinquier’s operations in 1952-1954 in Indochina, and how the his GMCA teams (Groupements de Commando Mixtes Aeróportés) were funded.

Turns out, Trinquier bought opium from Meo (Hmong) tribes, and sold it to the Bing Xuyen (a military faction that dabbled in criminal activities), for later distribution in Saigon.

Using this money, Trinquier was able to have his GMCA teams to train and organize over 20,000 indigenous fighters against the Viet Minh.

Hence, is anyone else familiar in how non-legal methods have been used to fund legitimate military actions?

On good reads his books have glowing reviews, in addition some large newspapers have written very highly of his work. But I have also seen some serious criticism of him. Accusations of plagiarism, instances of his writing indicating a lack of knowledge of the topic.

The SS recruited men from the Cossacks, Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Albania, Bosnia, India, and more. These ethnic groups were not high on the racial hierarchy of the Nazis, and many were marked for death like slavs from Russia and Ukraine. How did they recruit men from these groups and how were they indoctrinated and justified in Nazi ideology? Also, how did SS soldiers and leadership that were considered higher on the race pyramid feel about serving alongside these troops? Was there ever infighting?

https://preview.redd.it/25lds25rua4e1.jpg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5aa054e62e10f8e21999592b254849d98fb5a545

The cool thing about the Type 10 and the K2 is that they can rise or lower their "posture". However, there isn't much literature about this. How does the suspension/hydraulic system of the Type 10/K2 work?

Famously the Germans practised elastic defence in the great wars, and it failed to lead them to victory. Is this a typical outcome for elastic defence? Seeing as one tends ye employ it when one is trying to preserve manpower and is at some sort of tactical or strategic disadvantage to begin with?

Be reading Blood Dim Tide by Gerold Astor and was wondering; especially since it seems the Germans overwhelmed GI positions mostly just with wave after wave. According to the accounts in the book.

Other than nuclear capacity and far flung territories/colonies, I can't think of anything. Gotta wager Italy is on their level of military capabilities (maybe not spending so much though).

Don’t seem to find much online

What was unique about officers so I can add it to my Napoleon wargame:

https://preview.redd.it/n3699v78f24e1.png?width=920&format=png&auto=webp&s=36ccbcc8b12ba23af2e596abad70fd25adddea8d

https://store.steampowered.com/app/3352750/Kings_of_Emperor_Bonaparte/

How would a CSG's attached attack submarine communicate with the rest of the strike group? I suppose there must be at least one way, yet I cannot understand how stealthy communications are possible in a combat enviroment.

Thanks for reading & answering!

I have been trying to find in the internet about the last training session that took place in JOTC in Panama before it was closed forever. Anyone here knows what month did the last session training take place before the closing of the infamous "GREEN HELL"?

US Coast Guard was a part of Treasury until 1967 when it was moved to Dept. of Transport. What was a logic behind moving it in first place and how much it affected Coast Guard as a whole? There was opinion against transfering part of US Armed Forces from already established position in the Treasury to the newly created Dept. of Transport middle of Vietnam War as well as Dept. of Transport having a lot of other administrative duties?

From my knowledge, currently the US Army doesn't have any pure armor battalions (just tanks, no mechanized infantry). There are two types of combined arms battalion:

Armor CABs:
2 x Tank Companies
1 x Mechanized Infantry Company

Infantry CABs:
2 x Mechanized Infantry Companies
1 x Tank Company

From my limited knowledge, I would imagine this structure is conducive for fighting low level/capability adversaries but won't be the most effective against a near-peer/professional adversaries. This is because a CAB don't have the highest armor and firepower requirements when it's fighting very old tanks/armored vehicles or none at all and just uses tanks to assault and lets the mechanized infantry insert the troops. However, against an pure armor battalion with equally capable tanks as yours, having CABs would be a draw back since it will lack the necessary firepower and armor. All in all, I would put my money on a pure armor battalion in pure armor vs CAB.

This question is so oddly specific because I encountered a relatively mindblowing outside-the-box thing today. I downloaded a game about Cold War era naval combat and was hunting a submarine. Standard stuff, torpedoes were in the water, but my ASW ships started firing salvos of anti-submarine rockets at the torpedoes, destroying them. My mind has been split ever since.

On one hand it seems like such a "video game", "that's not how real combat works" thing, like constantly diving prone and getting up to go faster than running, yet the basic idea seems simple enough once the "anti-submarine weapons are only for submarines" assumption was broken. If submarines, manned underwater vehicles, can be mission-killed or sunk by throwing explosives into the water, why not unmanned underwater vehicles, which is essentially what torpedoes are? More technically speaking, I don't see how the kill chain for anti-torpedo defenses is that much different than anti-submarine ones: you are still hearing the noise of the craft or the sonar return off them, and you are still calculating their location and hurling explosives to that location.

I can't imagine that this tactic is based on a real, let alone successful engagement. My understanding is that "modern" naval combat is exceedingly rare, hence the appeal of yet another Cold-War-Gone-Hot style game in which yet another developer gets to answer the "How exactly would X missile fare against Y countermeasure" question in their own work of fiction. As such, I can only imagine that this anti-submarine-weapon-as-improvised-active-torpedo-defenses tactic is based on a military journal article, old doctrine that never saw use, some sort of experiment or exercise, etc.

Shouldn't it have been assumed that an invasion of Canada under Plan Red would have automatically triggered a war with the British as entailed by Plan Pink?

Light infantry:

The French fielded Miquelet skirmishers and the Imperial Army Grenzers as early as the 9 Years War/Great Turkish War. While they were predominantly armed with muskets, the French experimentally issued the best shots in the companies rifles during the War of the Spanish Succession though only during the Italian Campaign. While the Russians did issue stuzer rifles to officers and musicians during the Great Northern War as personal defence weapons, dedicated rifle armed Jaegers wouldn't be formed untill the 7 Years War. Russian line officers would replace the stuzers with musket and bayonet as a result of the 1737 Turkish War.

Up untill the Revolutionary/Napoleonic era when skirmishers were more heavily used to support line formations, light infantry were mostly dedicated specialists sometimes consisting of mostly ethnic minorities such as France's "Arquebusiers of Russilon" which descended from the Catalan Miquelets and the Imperial Pandours who were predominantly from Croatia or Slavonia.

By the Napoleonic Wars, most Western light infantry were divided between riflemen and light infantry who skirmished with muskets. Rifles were not a new technology by any means by this point, and even as late as 1840, these predominantly remained flintlock.

Line infantry:

The 1690s was a mad scramble to replace match with flintlocks. For the Imperial Army, match/flint hybrids started production around 1684 because the line musketeers and dragoons were facing flintlock armed Janissaries and Tufecs. For the French, this was because of the dissappointing performance of matchlock armed line musketeers against mostly flintlock Anglo Dutch infantry at Steenquerque. The Spanish even started procurent miquelet flintlock/match hybrids during the 1680s although we don't know as to what extent as matchlocks weren't abolished untill 1702.

By the 2nd half of the 1690s, socket bayonets were introduced. The French introduced a spear pointed variant sometime during the 9 Years War as they showed up in contemporary prints as early as 1695, Brandenburg/Prussia was using them by 1698 as per contemporary portraits of Lieb Grenadiers, and the Imperial Army had their own which was a plug bayonet soldered to a socket mechanism by around 1700 although this probably means the late 1690s.

Save for an improved lock for safety reasons, the combination of flintlock and socket bayonet effectively remained unchanged into the 1840s.

Question as per the title, I suppose. It’s something in which I’m curious, but hoping to be directed to either an external link or a post on here.

Of course, their limited numbers are going to be a factor, but - even if Russian statements as to the effectiveness of the Felon are way overstated - it should be substantially more capable than anything in Ukrainian Air Force service.

I know it's popular in the American imagination to view themselves as the underdogs, but looking into it, it seem like America has had advantage In most of the major war's they've been in,

In the Revolutionary War, they were financed by France (and later Spain), while the UK was dealing with five separate globe-spanning conflicts, In WWII, the average American soldier was much better paid than any other military on the planet. The average American private was paid $50 a month, while British privates received $12. An American sergeant out-earned most low-ranking officers of other countries, they were also better supplied, they had more money to throw around and more of basically everything. Including certain consumer goods like cigarettes, coca cola, chocolate etc that were dear in most of Europe at the time.

I was watching Zero Dark Thirty and I’ve got a question.

There is a scene where Jessica Chastain’s Maya gets approached by James Gandolfini who is playing the CIA Director in a cafeteria and they discuss how long she has been in the CIA.

Maya says that she was recruited directly from high school and the CIA director asks if she knows why. Maya said something like “I don’t think I’m allowed to answer that.”

I know there is likely a significant amount of artistic licence in the movies, but did the CIA recruit direct from high schools during the GWOT?

Furthermore, why wouldn’t Maya answer the director? It seems like it’s a joke that people should know, but I don’t get it.

I know that there was a significant amount of artistic licence

Just something I was wondering recently

What do you do with your phones? Cuz you can’t bring them out to the jungle/mountain with you due to tracking concerns, yet you can’t just go awol on cellphone for day on end

Hi all

Going down a bit of a rabbit hole tonight and was curious if anyone can point me to some texts that outline, or just explain to me, if there are any alliances between certain terror groups? There are a few points that I AM aware of here–Taliban shielding AQ in Afghanistan, IS being AQ offshoot, and the obvious illicit backdoor state sponsorships– but I was more so wondering if there were more surprising connections that are more so unknown? Possibly even trans-regional/intercontinental? Multi-hemispheric? (don't even know if this is a word)

How do these relationships come about and how are they symbiotic outside of congruent ideologies?

I obviously have this image in my mind of a South Park-esque "evil group summit meeting"

Thanks for any and all info!!!

I highly doubt their soldiers are highly educated or that their leaders have a solid command structure. I assume in the US we use a plethora of logistics software to plan every little movement, but do they? How can they have planned such a massive attach on Aleppo?

From what I understand, attack helicopters are the top anti armor asset available to ground forces and have significant flexibility in dealing with large scale offensives of armored vehicles.

Yet the European militaries have so few attack helicopters. Germany for example has 51 Eurocopter tiger attack helicopters. The total number of apaches found in every single US division, using the armies 2030 vision, is 48. Why does the US have basically the same number of attack helicopters in any random national guard light infantry division as the Germans have across their entire military? France is little better with 67 helicopters (only 19 more than a single American division has). Italy has 59, Spain has 18 (6 fewer than you’d find in one of the two attack or attack reconnaissance battalions each division has) and the UK only has a planned number of 50.

Add up all the biggest countries in Europe and you have fewer attack helicopters than can be found in just the national guard light infantry divisions of the US, to say nothing of all the active duty divisions.

Why do they have so few of them?

Given the fact that the 101st Airborne Division is made for Air Assaults missions, why is it's combat aviation brigade the same size as that of other divisions which do not conduct Air Assault operations. Currently it includes the following:
- Attack / Recon Squadron
- Attack Battalion
- Assault Battalion
- General Support Battalion

If we suppose there are 1000 soldiers/infantry battalion, that would be just 9000 combat troops that you would have to deploy, which is excluding all other units.

Even in the "Army 2030" plans, they only have 1 more assault battalion for the air assault division template.