• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bad ideas in war

No, they were swapped for a bade in Bermuda and Newfoundland.

They were crewed by the Royal Navy.
It was in 1940 before the US was at war.

We just covered this
 
Last edited:
Gawdzilla Sama said:
The occupation was never considered practical, too deep in "Indian Country" for the IJN. They hail mary'd the invasion on the basis of "let's see what happens." (I base that on reading I did while doing my Master's at Purdue. Fairly certain the pertinent tomes are still on the shelves there, not having moved since they were reshelved after that paper was done.)
Click to expand...
They certainly had brought the troops to try it.

Thing is many 'alternative historians' have assumed that if Japan had defeated the US Fleet than the occupation was a fait accompli. In reality any such invasion would have faced an almost impossible challenge where limited approach areas and inadequate landing craft would mean Japanese "marines" would have to wade through chest-high water for almost 1000 yards, and the air raids had done a very poor job of damaging any coastal defense equipment.
 
kookbreaker said:
They certainly had brought the troops to try it.

Thing is many 'alternative historians' have assumed that if Japan had defeated the US Fleet than the occupation was a fait accompli. In reality any such invasion would have faced an almost impossible challenge where limited approach areas and inadequate landing craft would mean Japanese "marines" would have to wade through chest-high water for almost 1000 yards, and the air raids had done a very poor job of damaging any coastal defense equipment.
Click to expand...
Plus the combat-qual'd gooneys would have objected.
 
kookbreaker said:
They certainly had brought the troops to try it.

Thing is many 'alternative historians' have assumed that if Japan had defeated the US Fleet than the occupation was a fait accompli. In reality any such invasion would have faced an almost impossible challenge where limited approach areas and inadequate landing craft would mean Japanese "marines" would have to wade through chest-high water for almost 1000 yards, and the air raids had done a very poor job of damaging any coastal defense equipment.
Click to expand...
Drachinifel just covered some of this in his last Q&A
 
The Ajax IFV (although I'm not sure how it is an IFV) as it seems to lack the "I" part and seems to be a very large scout vehicle I'd argue is counter to the lessons from Ukraine)

Meanwhile the Ares variant seems to lack the "F" part , with similar armament and crew to the Spartan APC, but 3 to 4 times as heavy.

I was prompted to think about this because of the below, which video popped up on my feed:


I'm not sure if I like or dislike his presentation style, but he does cram a lot of information (and memes) into a short time.

As an aside I see that the parent IFV was used for the basis of the M10 Booker, which, if it has similar issues, might explain why that was cancelled. If it didn't, maybe that would have been a better replacement for the Ajax, although I still think a CV90 with both infantry and a largish gun would have been a better concept. Given all the details in the above video virtually any western IFV would have been better.
 
New to the thread, but it always amazed me how it used to be common practice in many instances for armies to face each other out in the open with basically a big square block of them vs the big square block of us and charrrrge (with variations on the theme)! Yeah gonna pass on being in front of that line.

Colonial Americans seemed to learn something from Native Americans by ducking behind trees, etc.
 
bigred said:
New to the thread, but it always amazed me how it used to be common practice in many instances for armies to face each other out in the open with basically a big square block of them vs the big square block of us and charrrrge (with variations on the theme)! Yeah gonna pass on being in front of that line.

Colonial Americans seemed to learn something from Native Americans by ducking behind trees, etc.
Click to expand...
There were reasons for the column tactics. They arose at a time when shock weapons were dominant, and columns were most effective in both offence and defence. As fire power gradually became more effective, line tactics were created to maximise this. Fire weapons were not always very effective because of their lack of precision, and only trained marksmen, like hunters, were effective at the ducking behind trees, etc. Besides, there is the question of control: it is more difficult to control a swarm of single soldiers spread over a larger area, than to control a closed formation.

It is true that the skirmisher tactics were developed in North America, but one reason for this was also the terrain that made cavalry less effective. In Europe skirmishers were mainly countered by cavalry.
 
Block tactics don't work in wooded, scrubby or broken ground.

Skirmishes have always been used.
For example Roman tactics put lightly armoured slingers and javelin throwers in front of the main units.

Before firearms, they developed so the troops could give each other mutual defence from attack. Ether with overlapping shields from arrows and foot soldiers or with spears from cavalry attack.

When firearms first started to appear they were very slow to operate and the shooters needed protection by men with spears. This lead to the development of the pike.

Before firearms, spears and polarms of various types were the main weapon on the battlefield. Swords were very much a backup weapon, even for knights.

As Steenkh says, early firearms were slow and inaccurate, real, repeatable precision not being attained until the development of rifling.
Soldiers were massed close to deliver enough weight of fire on the target to do meaningful damage.
Multiple rows were needed to allow volley firing to increase the overall rate of fire. ( It's one of the main reasons muskets were so long, to allow the rear ranks to shoot past those in front, over their shoulders.. The other main reason was to put s bayonet on the end and make a long enough spear to defend against cavalry attack).
 
Last edited:
Wudang said:
When I found out the quantity of drugs the German High Command, including Hitler, things started to become a little clearer.
"The tanks are too big for the bridges!"
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just like, uh, your opinion, man. "
Click to expand...
More like: Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don’t you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
 
bigred said:
New to the thread, but it always amazed me how it used to be common practice in many instances for armies to face each other out in the open with basically a big square block of them vs the big square block of us and charrrrge (with variations on the theme)! Yeah gonna pass on being in front of that line.

Colonial Americans seemed to learn something from Native Americans by ducking behind trees, etc.
Click to expand...
You should realize that the fledgling Continental Army only started winning once they properly adopted line tactics.
 
steenkh said:
There were reasons for the column tactics. They arose at a time when shock weapons were dominant, and columns were most effective in both offence and defence. As fire power gradually became more effective, line tactics were created to maximise this. Fire weapons were not always very effective because of their lack of precision, and only trained marksmen, like hunters, were effective at the ducking behind trees, etc. Besides, there is the question of control: it is more difficult to control a swarm of single soldiers spread over a larger area, than to control a closed formation.

It is true that the skirmisher tactics were developed in North America, but one reason for this was also the terrain that made cavalry less effective. In Europe skirmishers were mainly countered by cavalry.
Click to expand...
I always liken it, in that at that time it was not the individual soldier, or even platoon that was shooting at the enemy.
The real weapon was the company, to be aimed and fired, by the company commander.That was the only way to ensure that enough bullets were going to the enemy in a controlled enough way, that hits and shock effect could be counted upon.
But the only way to do that, was to keep the soldiers in orderly columns and lines. Also, keeping together, was the best way defend against cavalry.

Having said that.
The light companies, certainly fought more as we would recognize these days. Spreading out and taking cover, while firing at their targets.
Mostly other light companies, but, having won that fight, the enemy regular columns/lines as well.
Hideously vulnerable to cavalry though.
 
bigred said:
New to the thread, but it always amazed me how it used to be common practice in many instances for armies to face each other out in the open with basically a big square block of them vs the big square block of us and charrrrge (with variations on the theme)! Yeah gonna pass on being in front of that line.

Colonial Americans seemed to learn something from Native Americans by ducking behind trees, etc.
Click to expand...
"Linear warfare", which was is what the tactic is called was used because it proved more effective than what preceded it: "pike and shot", which in turn replaced late medieval warfare tactics because it proved more effective.

US revolutionary soldiers did indeed use light infantry tactics, but so did the British. And both sides used rifles. But, both sides used linear tactics in large battles. It was impossible for commanders to control troops spread out like modern soldiers before modern communications. And, spread out infantry would be cut down by cavalry.


ETA: oh this is a good one too.

 
Last edited:
lobosrul5 said:
"Linear warfare", which was is what the tactic is called was used because it proved more effective than what preceded it: "pike and shot", which in turn replaced late medieval warfare tactics because it proved more effective.

US revolutionary soldiers did indeed use light infantry tactics, but so did the British. And both sides used rifles. But, both sides used linear tactics in large battles. It was impossible for commanders to control troops spread out like modern soldiers before modern communications. And, spread out infantry would be cut down by cavalry.



ETA: oh this is a good one too.

Click to expand...
Embeds are broken because you keep using old depreciated tag. Either just past YouTube links or use MEDIA tag.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom