Credible military history and science.

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.

Since they do carry HE rounds in their ammo magazine for their autocannons, having blowout panels would help with crew survivability.

Side question: Since the CV90 has the ammo stored right underneath the crew, does that make it a disadvantage compared to other IFVs.

Based on either general Nazi strategy at the time or his own experiences up to then.

When NATO was in Afghanistan, much has been said regarding the challenges with training the Afghan Army which ultimately folded to the Taliban. But for the Soviets, what was their experience when it came to doing the same during the Cold War?

Also, what did the top French military leaders think of him?

That one post about the Indian Army made me curious, so I slapped a time period on the question to make it more specific and something people can maybe answer more reliably with actual sources. So how did India stack up compared to, say, China and Japan, or the US and Russia?

Mostly I'm interested in the Army side of things, but I guess I've not read much about India's past in the air or naval space either. Thanks!

So, for example Estonia or Denmark. During the Afghanistan war, they were deployed in Helmand which at the peak of the conflict was stationed tens of thousands of their allies from the UK and the US.

Say if either wanted to run a platoon or company-sized operation anywhere in Helmand, could they do so since it entails just their forces or would they need to coordinate with the US/UK since they had larger resources/were in charge of the Allied forces in the province?

Just curious how much control individual nations (specifically from smaller nations) had when organizing their very own operations?

I heard that Deep Battle had a defensive side which was used in the battle of Kursk, what is this defensive side exactly? How does it operate? any graphics or pictures would be appreciated

I read an article about how the Dutch Army wants to reactivate its tank force which has been deactivated for over a decade now. How momentous of a task is that? More so if there's no more tank or armor guys still in service right?

My understanding is that flying wings are theoretically the lowest possible surface area plane design to achieve a given amount of lift, maximizing fuel efficiency (and thus range) and minimizing radar signature (and thus early warning) for a given payload. Fly-by-wire controls have improved enough to finally render flying wings manageable to fly in spite of their inherently restricted suite of control surfaces. The B-2 proved that such could be used in production aircraft at the tail end of the Cold War. Why hasn't it caught on more broadly for post-Cold War tankers, drones, cargo planes, and the like?

Maybe not even against a MBT- but against smaller mechanized infantry and the like.

I've been thinking on something - I've encountered one or two guys who described the Indian Army as "Laughable" and believed the Pakistanis to be the only SEA military that could fight. From my own research, I've don't think that's true given that India essentially won most of the engagements. Having read the campaign of the 1971 War, I was very impressed by what I saw - the Indian commanders were confronted by an entrenched enemy occupying ideal defensive territory (rivers and marshes of Bangladesh), and used a combination of air strikes, cooperation with the Bangladeshi resistance, and bold manoeuvres to completely dislodge them.

And while I've only found a few sources, I actually get the sense that most US Army soldiers and officers who've trained alongside the Indian Army came away pleasantly surprised by it. Is this true?

By equivalent, what I mean how did they plan to fight? Compare this to

• France’s Methodical Battle, with infantry operating within the range of artillery and extensive rigid planning

• Italy’s (attempted) Guerra di Rapido Corso, which was sought to combine WW1 style planning with aggressive armored attacks at the flank

• Japan’s infantry-oriented aggressive infiltration

• Germany’s ideas of maneuver warfare and concentration at a single focal point

Of course, the summaries above are vastly oversimplified, and my knowledge and understanding about military doctrine is skin-deep at best, so any corrections to those or the foundational point of the question are greatly appreciated.

With optical, infrared, and radar sensors getting so good, plus precision guided missles, it seems nearly impossible for a tank to camouflage itself from an aerial adversary in the absence of either air supremacy or air defense. That’s my premise, but is that accurate? Some nations will be in a position where they don’t have either, yet don’t want the loss of all armored vehicles to be a fait accompli. So why hasn’t there been effort to design the tank version of an f35 for environments without air superiority/defense?

I had finished Confronting Saddam Hussein not too long ago, I can't remember if in Washington they had been open to the idea of CPA orders 1 and 2. I know the problem was that Bush gave him the authority to do it in the first place without a whole lot of oversight, but had he spoke to the people in Washington about it? I don't remember exactly but I vaguely remember the idea itself not being as crazy at the time (even though some people opposed it) even though it had essentially been the catalyst for destabilization later when it was implemented.

By the start of Alexander's campaign the Persians were superior in number and could mobilize more while Alexander should've been more difficult to get reinforcement as he ventured deep into Persian teritory. As in Gaugamela, how did the Persian lose? The Macedonians were outnumbered. So what exactly caused Alexander's campaign to be succesful? Is it because superior training? Equipment? Or is it Persian general inferior to Macedonian one?

It's something I have always pondered, considering at least a few countries still maintain a fleet of these kinds of weapons (I.E. the Gepard). I would assume that they are still useful against enemy helicopters and drones, but are they in any way useful against fast moving jets?

I was thinking about tanks, what the likely recommended minimum firing distance would be with some type of HE shell. Is there publicly available data anywhere that people might be able to point me to? I'm not fussed on era, just not sure what to search. Thank you!

Why from what I've seen helicopters are not a organic part of for example a air assault platoon, the same way an APC would be in a mechanized infantry platoon, there usually in their own separate helicopter units in the battalion level if I'm not mistaken.

Also compared to the Continental Army, how well did they fight?

Hello there.

Can anyone recommend any books that covers the DRA's army?

Essentially, I am referring to the opening scene of HBO's Rome which shows roman soldiers in the second row periodically and methodically switching places with those in the first.

From what I have gathered, this sort of orderly rotation of troops did not happen, but I've heard claims of soldiers switching places of their own accord. Because of the lack of mention in certain works like emperor Maurice's Strategikon and because of a few passages specifying what weapons each rank should carry, even this kind of switching seems unlikely.

This raises the question, why didn't they rotate troops? Clearly there must have been some sort of disadvantage. The only one I can think of is that it leaves soldiers vulnerable while rotating, but whether only this outweighs the benefits I don't know.

It seems like every new-design USN ship and submarine comes in over budget and late. Do all navies have this problem?