General military questions thread

[ATP]

Since 17th century and introduction of wheellocks, lance cavalry was on the decline, especially in technological pioneer countries, pistols increasingly competing for being a better shock attack weapon for cavalry (more reuseable, more maneuverable, and a cavalryman may well carry few), in addition to pike and shot tactics being a problem for lances and much less so for pistols.

Lances then had a bit of revival post-Napoleon with the decline of pikes and armor, but that in turn meant more light style lance cavalry as opposed to the medium armored Hussars.

I forget,that winged-hussarls had kopia longer then pike,so they could break pikeman.If they do not use metal armour,like russians,they sometimes killed all 6 in one attack.

If they keep training,they would never decline as fighting force.Lance was used by medium calvary,so called "pancerni"

 

[Buba]

I forget,that winged-hussarls had kopia longer then pike

One of the traps in Polish-English translations - in Polish "lanca" is the thingy you wave around in one hand (which, to avoid confusion, maybe should be rendered as "spear" in English), while a "kopia" is the longer and thicker weapon, held between the arm and torso.
In English "lance" may be either ...

 

[PsihoKekec]

while a "kopia" is the longer and thicker weapon, held between the arm and torso.

Which is also one of the traps of translating between different Slavic languages, in Slovenian language ''kopje'' is javelin (lance and spear are both bundled under ''sulica'').

 

[ATP]

Which is also one of the traps of translating between different Slavic languages, in Slovenian language ''kopje'' is javelin (lance and spear are both bundled under ''sulica'').

thanks for info.
Anyway,since Sobieski we have kind of combined arms theory - horse armies made from winged hussarls,medium and light calvary,and dragoons who fight on foot as infrantry.
Together,they were mobile/in 1675 they made 400km in 5 days chasing tatars/ and could fight almost any enemy.
If we keep that,Poland would never fall.
But,question is - why nobody copied that kind of army ?

 

[Buba]

Anyway,since Sobieski we have kind of combined arms theory - horse armies made from winged hussarls,medium and light calvary,and dragoons who fight on foot as infrantry.
Together,they were mobile/in 1675 they made 400km in 5 days chasing tatars/ and could fight almost any enemy.

After which they spent a week taking care of barely alive horses ...
The key aspect is, of course, the word almost ...

If we keep that,Poland would never fall.

Poland fell due to politics, not due to military action.

But,question is - why nobody copied that kind of army ?

Many reasons - starting with not enough infantry and artillery.
Powerless against fortifications. Cannot hold terrain.
Different armies have different needs - a highly mobile, firepower-light force was useful for chasing Tartar slave taking raids - not so much in other circumstances.

 

[Marduk]

thanks for info.
Anyway,since Sobieski we have kind of combined arms theory - horse armies made from winged hussarls,medium and light calvary,and dragoons who fight on foot as infrantry.
Together,they were mobile/in 1675 they made 400km in 5 days chasing tatars/ and could fight almost any enemy.
If we keep that,Poland would never fall.
But,question is - why nobody copied that kind of army ?

Another one is that Poland had an unusually large proportion of nobility in population by Europe's standards, especially of that time. So who's gonna be the cavalry (and providing a big chunk of its expensive gear plus a decent rider to use it) in such a cavalry heavy army?

 

[ATP]

Another one is that Poland had an unusually large proportion of nobility in population by Europe's standards, especially of that time. So who's gonna be the cavalry (and providing a big chunk of its expensive gear plus a decent rider to use it) in such a cavalry heavy army?

Becouse when in theory our gentry had common people in disdain,in practice in military they hired anybody who was competent.
Winged hussars,for example, was semi-private unit,when one gentry buyed horses and armour for himself,2 others who usually were gentry but could be able commoners,2 wagons and about 15 armed commoner servants which could be used as infrantry or light calvary.
Polish state gave him money,but it never covered more then half of expanses.

In medium and heavy calvary soldiers were almost always gentry,but light calvary and dragoons were mostly commoners.
About coping - winged hussarls would go throught any infrantry,and
And about our gentry levies - career gentry soldier have them in real disdain and prefered able commonners.

So,as long as it remain fighting force,commoners were there ,althought they never could made career bigger then dragoon or light calvary commander.

About what @Buba said -
1.yes, they horses in good condition,but they could made circles near any western army without making horses weak.
2.In 1792 our cowardly king surrender when he still have army and russians crossed Bug river - but with Sobieski style 10.000 strong calvary corps,they would be beaten few times before that,so he would continue fighting.
Poland would win 1792 war,and strong Poland would change everything in History from that point.

3.Our armies have winged hussarls who break any infrantry and calvary in open field,medium calvary which break any calvary and most infrantry,and light which always blind enemy scouts and found him before he found us.Dragoons would hold terrain.
So,coping it for part of other army/no more then 10.000 need/ would basically destroy any smaller enemy army,and let you attack without knowing where your army is.

 

[Val the Moofia Boss]

I have better question - how many kamikaze in Mig19 you need to sink american carrier ? if all they do not fear and attack no matter how much of them die.

My understanding is that modern warships aren't as heavily armored as warships from WW2 and before, because naval commanders aren't really expecting an exchange of artillery shells, but missiles and maybe torpedoes. Kamikazes might do more damage to modern warships than ships from WW2 and before, so you might need only a few.

Ofcourse, as mentioned before, actually getting a missile or a plane to reach the target warship in the first place is another matter.

 

[Knowledgeispower]

My understanding is that modern warships aren't as heavily armored as warships from WW2 and before, because naval commanders aren't really expecting an exchange of artillery shells, but missiles and maybe torpedoes. Kamikazes might do more damage to modern warships than ships from WW2 and before, so you might need only a few.

Ofcourse, as mentioned before, actually getting a missile or a plane to reach the target warship in the first place is another matter.

Its moreso that you can't armor the sensors which means any significant hit is a mission kill so why bother with the additional expense of thick armor plate. Oh don't get me wrong warships still have some armor but that's basically to limit splinter damage and reduce the structural damage of a hit ie not generally thicker than an inch and a half

 

[Buba]

It believe - and may be wrong, of course - but IMO a contemporary carrier is probably the most difficult warship to kamikaze as its deck is armoured - or at least sturdy enough to allow for landings (i.e. controlled crashes) of airplanes weighting over ten tons.
Also, it is supposedly the strength deck (whatever that might mean).
A MiG 19 might not bounce off the deck, but the damage it inflicts might not be that devastating.
Airframe stays on the deck while the engine penetrates?
Especially as the hanger - which is below the deck - is well equipped to handle emergencies such as burning airplanes ...
Now, if that MiG had a BOMB (please give details) attached to it this would change things ...

 

[ATP]

It believe - and may be wrong, of course - but IMO a carrier is probably the most difficult warship to kamikaze as its deck is armoured - or at least sturdy enough to allow for landings (i.e. controlled crashes) of airplanes weighting over ten tons. Also, it is the strength deck (whatever that might mean).
A MiG 19 might not bounce off the deck, but the damage it inflicts might not be that devastating.
Airframe stays on the deck while the engine penetrates?
Especially as the hanger - which is below the deck - is well equipped to handle emergencies such as burning airplanes ...
Now, if that MiG had a BOMB (please give details) attached to it this would change things ...

Since we are taking about Mig 19,let made it one 500kg bomb.I do not think that plane could bring more if it must attack target far from shore.

 

[Knowledgeispower]

It believe - and may be wrong, of course - but IMO a contemporary carrier is probably the most difficult warship to kamikaze as its deck is armoured - or at least sturdy enough to allow for landings (i.e. controlled crashes) of airplanes weighting over ten tons.
Also, it is supposedly the strength deck (whatever that might mean).
A MiG 19 might not bounce off the deck, but the damage it inflicts might not be that devastating.
Airframe stays on the deck while the engine penetrates?
Especially as the hanger - which is below the deck - is well equipped to handle emergencies such as burning airplanes ...
Now, if that MiG had a BOMB (please give details) attached to it this would change things ...

Carriers are basically the only ships still around in active service to have two layers of deck armor one for the flight deck one for the hangar floor(both a couple inches thick) and also a significant armored belt(4 inches thick) and a torpedo defense system
As for what the strength deck means that's where the hull of the ship itself ends. In older designs the flight deck and really anything above the hanger floor was superstructure

 

[paulobrito]

If you hit a CVN with one of the big Russian / Soviet anti-ship missiles, said carrier is also mission killed most probably. These are huge weapons flying at very high supersonic speeds with big warheads.
Hitting it is the difficult part, granted.

 

[Buba]

How good was the Mk.VI as a reconnaissance tank?

Light Tank Mk VI - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's AT capabilities are irrelevant, I only am interested in the scouting aspect. IMO the radio was its biggest weapon
The tracks look very narrow to my eyes ...
As it wasn't really meant to fight, was the cupola necessary? Wouldn't the commander ride around with his head outside anyway, and button down only when doing the Run away! Run away!
How much weight could be saved by replacing it with a hatch (like the Indian Army version)?

 

[BlackDragon98]

How good was the Mk.VI as a reconnaissance tank?

Light Tank Mk VI - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's AT capabilities are irrelevant, I only am interested in the scouting aspect. IMO the radio was its biggest weapon
The tracks look very narrow to my eyes ...
As it wasn't really meant to fight, was the cupola necessary? Wouldn't the commander ride around with his head outside anyway, and button down only when doing the Run away! Run away!
How much weight could be saved by replacing it with a hatch (like the Indian Army version)?

Scouting was probably bad as well.

The Mk. VI's armor could only hold up against rifles and rifle-caliber MGs. It had 4-14mm of armor.

One of these "bundle bombs" would be more than enough to destroy it. And German recon forces were equipped with SdKfz 231s and 222s during the early war as well, both of which carried 20mm cannons that would be more than enough to destroy a Mk. VI before the commander could say "Bollocks!".

My suggestion would be to do what the Germans did and turn the thing into a self-propelled light artillery, thus negating the disadvantages of it's light armor.

 

[Zachowon]

For its time it was a quick thing.
It most likely was useless in places where the ground was looser. Because Tracks would have a hard time being that narrow.

It is basically something you would use as infantry support to clear our areas that are to small for other tanks and have lots of infantry and just to be stationary or scout ahead of the main formation to see for threats.

It was just that

 

[BlackDragon98]

For its time it was a quick thing.
It most likely was useless in places where the ground was looser. Because Tracks would have a hard time being that narrow.

It is basically something you would use as infantry support to clear our areas that are to small for other tanks and have lots of infantry and just to be stationary or scout ahead of the main formation to see for threats.

It was just that

It became completely useless once infantry started getting better, more portable AT weapons.

Like I said, you can turn it into a fast SPG. That's all there is to the chassis by 1941.

 

[Zachowon]

It became completely useless once infantry started getting better, more portable AT weapons.

Like I said, you can turn it into a fast SPG. That's all there is to the chassis by 1941.

Not really.
Just because portable AT existed doesn't make things obsolete.

An infantry squad wouldn't carry anything and if you are getting shot at you arnt sticking your head up.
They had squads designated to carry AT...

 

[Buba]

The Mk. VI's armor could only hold up against rifles and rifle-caliber MGs. It had 4-14mm of armor.

That's usually enough for recon missions ...

German recon forces were equipped with SdKfz 231s and 222s during the early war as well, both of which carried 20mm cannons

The Mk.IV has no business getting closer than 300-500m metres to those potent AT platforms , a range at which non-penetration is quite likely.
AT rifles issued to infantry run out of steam quite quickly too. And PAK is not everywhere.

True that the Mk.VI seems to be rather high for its mission and its armour does not seem to be well angled (WTF are those tumorous growths on the plate covering the engine?). Combined with those narrow tracks - good for policing actions in the colonies, not so much for recce in Europe?

 

[Zachowon]

It would be good for patrolling behind lines but can be a good scout car. Fast for its size.