|
Post by Beth on May 2, 2021 22:23:57 GMT
Let me agree you can't talk war without politics because they have always gone hand and hand. You can talk about war though without falling into incivilities. Every war has derogatory terms and phrases. Don't use them. We are all adults so I know that conversations will be handled well. As others can tell you, I put these warnings in for anyone else who comes along in the future. Also, if you use a military slang please define it at least once for those of us (mostly me I believe) that are unfamiliar with the terms. If you don't, I will respond with Regency slang and then no one will understand each other.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2021 23:25:23 GMT
The Kurds always got a raw deal, even today they still get a raw deal, didn’t they get shit on again after fighting ISIS and other nasties in Iraq? I don’t know who from our side did the deed but the Turks have treated them as terrorists for years. The whole of the middle east is a tinder box plus it was a breeding ground for nutters, they didn't need our help to kill each other and the jews still would have flocked there after WW2.
We were not perfect, but who is, we made mistakes, so what the hell, we all make them, the French made a huge mistake on not relinquishing their hold in Indochina, which many think caused the Vietnam war and we all know how many American lives that caused, but that was De Gaulle for you, a nasty, bitter man.
When we were young, we was brought up on American TV and movies, even a lot of our toys had US influences, I personally live the USA, but I was shocked to here that Britain was not regarded well over the pond. I reckon that you won’t find a better friend than us, plus two of our commonwealth countries are not far behind us, Canada and Australia, I think that all three of us would back America if she needed our help.
You may think that your country rebelled at the right time, but your neighbours Canada didn’t and I consider the Canadians a true friend to Britain, so they did alright being a colony, so did Australia and New Zealand.
As I said Mike, I like the states, my mother did too, she loved US movies and music. I cant wait to go back to the states, went there in 2008 for two weeks, and loved every minute of it. Ian, It don't have anything against Great Britain; they step up a lot. What I have a problem with is people who took over places as colonies frequently do not step up when there are problems in those places. The French do go into Chad. The Belgians I don't believe try to help in the Congo. The Spanish and the Catholic Church raped South and Central America and the Spanish claim they should get the treasure from when people find their treasure ships. "People" seem to say the American's should lead. I think the countries that brought other countries into their empire should lead when that country needs help and then we can provide additional help. America screwed up Aghanistan twice however. Once when we helped them chase the Soviets out and told the Afghan's 'see ya' and once when we went back in, so we are no shining city on the hill and we weren't very nice to the 'American" Indians, but then, neither was anyone else. I think we regard Britain quite well. They are frequently the only people who go in with us (or are at least at the head of the pack as the others follow.) This is probably coming across harsher than it really is.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on May 3, 2021 12:01:44 GMT
No problem Mike, I just get a little defencive sometimes, it is nothing against you, but people always seem knock the old British empire as if we were the only ones to have one, a lot of it we had to fight for, mainly against the French.
There is an actress over here called Joanna Lumley, she was an Avengers girl in the 1970s, she was born in Indian as her father was in the British army, they made a documentary about it which she travelled back to her old home on the sub-continent, well she was surprised to find that a few of the house keeping staff were in fact still alive and she spoke to one of them about working for the British and he said that they just put up with it and did their job, Joanna said to him if he resented the British and he said a little but he would rather be ruled by the British then the Dutch “LOL”
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2021 14:37:11 GMT
Better the British than the French, Spanish, Portuguese, or the (especially) Catholic Church. They all came into North America and made no attempt to understand what was there. They were arrogant, made no attempt to understand the culture and had no conception of treating them as equals (which of course was the culture at the time).
I find it really interesting that the Americas never got out of the stone age. Some say it is due to the lack of large domesticated animals, but also because of the relatively small population and vast resources present. But the original population was not as noble as they say. They practices slavery just like most other people, but it seems to be a little different than that imposed on Africans by Europeans. And they manipulated the environment in ways we do not understand. They were also as brutal as Europeans were in pushing west under the pressure of increasing numbers and superior technology. I recommend Lakota America and The Comanche Empire as excellent and eye opening reading on the evolution of Indian Culture and their interaction with other tribes and the Europeans. They're revisionist, but balenced.
Of course, we (US) go into places like Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan and are just as arrogant and make little effort to understand the culture.
The conduct of the Catholic Church in the New World and Christian conduct during the Crusades (where they tried to slaughter everyone equally, be they Lutheran, Orthodox, Jew, Muslim, or anything else) is what made me abandon the Catholic Church and become an atheist. That said, I think i fully internalized most, but not all Catholic doctrine, and my time in Ranger School (spent more time in hospital than in the class), and in the 11th Cavalry made me the person I am today. Of course, sometimes I think of myself as "ruined" by the experience and my wife and her friends all label me as stoic, which I find hard to accept.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on May 3, 2021 15:32:13 GMT
Its a brutal world Mike, religion has in some cases, made it even more brutal, in England we all live together and faith is not an issue, but northern Ireland is another kettle of fish, the Catholics and Protestant's still hate each other, they can't even live in the same area as one and other.
The middle east is another area too, there will never be peace in that region.
You mentioned the Comanches, is it true that even the Sioux and the Apaches feared them?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2021 16:31:57 GMT
Everybody feared them. The totally dominated the Apache apparently. The Comanche Empire makes a case that Mexico is the way it is today because they dominated the area around the Rio Grande from the Mississippi River to the western border of New Mexico which paved the way, unintentionally, for the Nation-State of Texas and the US victory in the Mexican War. Interestingly, neither book discusses any direct interactions between Sioux/Cheyanne and Comanche, although the Comanche appear to be the source of almost all the horse culture of the Plain's Indians. Well, the Apache were first, but the Comanche took over. The even stole horses/cattle from Mexico, Texas, and New Mexico and sold them back to them as well as breeding vast herds of horseflesh for trade. One thesis of the author is the Comanche failed partly due to disease but also because horse and Bison share the same food, and the imbalance between needing the Bison for food as well as the robe trade caused an ecological imbalance, dooming the Bison even before the whites starting shooting them wholesale for both robes and to clear the way for the railroad. There are games which are starting to appeal to me which I am thinking of pre-ordering (Woe is me. So many games to design, play, books to read/write, and models to build! Where will I find the time?): www.gmtgames.com/p-872-comanchera-the-rise-and-fall-of-the-comanche-empire-2nd-printing.aspxwww.gmtgames.com/p-654-plains-indian-wars.aspx
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 3, 2021 18:16:24 GMT
Ian: If anyone ever gives you the choice between messing with the Comanche, or walking over the coals in the hottest part of Hell, choose the coals.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on May 3, 2021 19:00:03 GMT
I would go for the second game Mike, the plains Indians cover a lot more ground then the Comanches.
What are Comancheros then Chuck, are they Spanish Comanches?
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on May 3, 2021 19:12:32 GMT
I am off base with modern TO/Es, I couldn't even tell you how many troops formed an Infantry section [or squad to you blokes], is it eight? I have however, studied Infantry units between 1920-1950 and they mainly all follow a similar suite, but if I was to organise a platoon now, then it would be based on the British, German and Russian platoon. I think that a 40-man platoon is a good size, with three ten-man sections and a ten-man PHQ;
PHQ: Lieutenant Platoon Sergeant Orderly/communications man Two-man scout team five-man sub-section; Corporal & four Privates Weapons; light mortar, tri-pod mounted HMG and AT Weapons Three Infantry Sections: each containing; Corporal 2 x Two-Man LMG Teams Lance Corporal 4 x Privates
If you wanted to bolster the platoon up to fifty eight all ranks then add another two-man LMG to each section and another two men to the sub-section.
This will give a similar look to the US Marine platoons which were fielded from 1944 onwards, with three BARs per squad.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 3, 2021 19:43:23 GMT
Answers:
1) Commanchero means - Those dealing with the Comanche. They were mainly Spanish and later Mexican traders that would bring western goods to the Comanche, including weapons and ammunition, in trade for horses, and Comanche created crafts, buffalo robes, and whatever else the Comanche had for trade including human trafficing.
2) The new standard rifle squad is nine, and that is good for the standard (dismounted) Infantry and Stryker mounted Infantry. With the Stryker you have two addition personnel per vehicle, the driver and vehicle commander, who stay with the vehicle, so your total for a Stryker squad is eleven, but only nine that dismount.
3) In the mechanized Infantry, which are now part of combined arms battalion, there are six dismounts, and a three member vehicle crew, driver, track commander, and gunner. The Bradley does not have any back seat room for more than six, and the troop compartment is very crowded even with six. That is one reason the Army likes the Stryker, there is plenty of room in the back seat.
4) I am a strong advocate of large Infantry platoons. I think between fifty and fifty five is the optimal size, and I would include an assistant platoon leader (a junior officer) in that organization. Back in the day, when I was for a short time in a Battle Group we had eleven man rifle squad (a squad leader and two five man fire teams), a weapons squad (The senior most squad leader, two three man machine gun teams, and two, two man 3.5 inch rocket launcher teams). The platoon headquarters was three, Platoon leader, Platoon Sergeant, and Radio Telephone Operator. Typically we would have a medic, and a two man mortar forward observer team attached. So when we took the field we had about fifty at full strength, forty seven assigned, and three attached.
5) The Marines do it differently. They have three thirteen man squads per platoon, and I think a four man platoon headquarters. All of their heavier weapons like machine guns and small anti-armor weapons are attached to the rifle platoons as required by the situation, from the company weapons platoon. All the ground tactical units in the Corps are organized on a triangular basis from squad to division. Three fire teams per squad, three squads per platoon, three platoons to a company, three companies per battalion, three battalions per regiment, three regiments per division. Of course starting at company level they have heavy weapons, platoons, and battalions have heavy weapons companies. Each Marine squad is divided into a squad leader and three four man fire teams, each team having two rifles, one SAW, and one grenade launcher/rifle
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on May 3, 2021 19:51:19 GMT
That looks like a pretty handy platoon Chuck. I also noticed that the British and US Infantry companies, didn't have dedicated anti-tank teams, you mentioned above 3.5in rocket launcher teams, but in WW2 and maybe Korea, PIATs and bazookas are kept at company HQ level, and simply loaned out to the platoons and sections, if needed, which must mean that British and US Infantry must all be trained to fire these weapons.
The Germans and Russians had dedicated anti-tank units, maybe the Hungarians and Romanians did too.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 3, 2021 19:55:34 GMT
Personally I like the way it was done in WWII, loaning out the light AT weapons. I would rather have four more rifles for most work. Drawing on my Light Infantry doctrine from way back when, if you are light Infantry and are facing tanks and other armored vehicles, your light Infantry is in the wrong place.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2021 21:16:27 GMT
The Marines have deleted one man from their squad and taking some other actions with their weapons units to fund cyber capabilities. Plus they got rid of tanks, MPs, and much of their cannon artillery. Some Marines, especially tankers, are transferring to the army. some are getting out early. I don't think any Marine Armor Officers have gone to the Army.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2021 10:04:11 GMT
Bobby was a superb tactician. He was a lousy strategist. The Germans likewise are/were superb tacticians. They too are lousy strategists, at least from WWI to the present day. If Bobby was a good strategist, he would have adopted his in law's George's approach and lose his way to victory. The Germans get themselves in two front wars. Neither had the logistics train necessary to fight the way they wanted. In WWI, the generals pretty much had complete control. In WWII, the Germans let Hitler be in control.
I guess today we are still pretty fair tacticians, up to say brigade. But we have somehow become bad strategists. I don't really know anymore about Division and Corps. They both want to be operational, but our leadership style does not support it with fear of mistakes and casualty intolerance. We persist in fighting along external lines at great distances on the Strategic and Tactical Offensive. I say we should fight on the Strategic Defensive, bur Tactical Offense, and play more emphais on raids, reprisals, and punative expeditions. This really belongs in the modern war thread you started,, so I am going to leave it here, and also post it over there
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on May 4, 2021 11:12:53 GMT
Like everything else, it is a gift, some people can look at a map or piece of ground and see its advantages and disadvantages. You can be schooled in the art of doing this but as in all walks of life some are better than other and are naturals, apparently Wellington must have been a natural, as he saw the potential of the Waterloo battlefield a year before the actual battle.
A master of the tactical defensive posture, the Duke of Wellington, later known as the “Iron Duke” for his military prowess, chose his ground well at Waterloo. Wellington recognized the potential strength of his deployment along the Mont-Saint-Jean Ridge and planned to use the escarpment as an impediment to any frontal assault undertaken by Napoleon Bonaparte’s French Army.
Wellington placed the bulk of his command on the reverse slope of the ridge astride the road to Brussels, offering some protection from enemy artillery bombardment while also concealing his numbers and troop movements from French eyes. On the forward slope he deployed a heavy skirmish line and sent troops to occupy key farmsteads that included, right to left, Hougoumont, La Haye Sainte, and Papelotte. These key positions consisted of orchards, country houses, stone walls, and courtyards. Their strong defense would serve as a breakwater, slowing down the progress of French assaults against the ridge and Wellington’s main line.
|
|