Well, there was one air to air missile that could have taken out tanks no problem...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIR-2_Genie
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIR-2_Genie
Ask a Soldier
- Thread starter Flying Pig
- Start date
The Americans had quite the obsession with giving nuclear weapons to terrifyingly junior people at one point. I remember hearing about the Davy Crockett, which thankfully was never used.
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
Yes, but your average anti-tank missile is supposed to work against heavily armoured vehicles with a fairly consistent chance of success.
LamaGT
Emperor
So wait, the javelin hitting jets as well as tanks in Battlefield 3 was a lie?
Silurian
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,567
r16
not deity
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 12,142
without any appearence of insulting the SAS , can the average anti-tank missile blow up a field kitchen ? Os is that yet another bar tale ?
Don't see why not. There's quite a trend in Afghanistan at the moment for using them on snipers, much to the irritation of senior officers. Seems to work well.
Those things could be brought down with machine-gun fire quite easily - at one point, a platoon saw one, opened up with their rifles, and shot the thing down!
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
Flying Pig said:
So it seems that you prefer attack to defence. Would you agree with such a military maxim?:
"There are words which carry the presage of defeat. Defence is such a word. What is the result of an even victorious defence? The next attempt of imposing it to that weaker, defender. The attacker, despite temporary setback, feels the master of situation."
It also seems to me, that counterattacks are actually one of the most important elements of every defence.
==============================================
Another question:
I've read / heard, that badly trained soldiers are more suitable for (or even more efficient in) defence than attack.
Is there any truth in this claim, or maybe badly trained soldiers are equally useless both in defence and in attack?
One of the key principles of war is offensive action: put simply, when you're attacking, you're automatically fighting where you want to be fighting. On the defensive, you let your enemy choose his battles, which gives him a natural advantage before battle is even joined. On top of that, the attack has a psychological edge, encouraging personal aggression and morale in the troops, while defending can often grind them down. Attacking the enemy makes it more difficult for him to carry out his plans, because he has to react to you rather than putting them into effect. Your quote also raises the very good point that the best you can hope for on the defensive is to get to the situation that you had before the fight, and only through attacking can real damage be done and ground gained.
I would more say that it is easier to mess up an attack without discipline, aggression and co-ordination. Poorly-trained and ill-motivated soldiers would probably do atrociously on the attack, while the process of hiding behind something and shooting at anything which exposes itself isn't anything like as complicated. It is certainly true that poorly-trained and poorly-led soldiers are far less inclined to offensive action than professionals with high morale, which for the reasons outlined above tends to end badly for them. Of course, Asian militaries have historically placed primacy on massed attacks by relatively low-quality troops, using iron discipline and sheer volume to ensure that the thing works, after a fashion, albeit with a rate of casualties which would be totally unacceptable in a professional army.
I would more say that it is easier to mess up an attack without discipline, aggression and co-ordination. Poorly-trained and ill-motivated soldiers would probably do atrociously on the attack, while the process of hiding behind something and shooting at anything which exposes itself isn't anything like as complicated. It is certainly true that poorly-trained and poorly-led soldiers are far less inclined to offensive action than professionals with high morale, which for the reasons outlined above tends to end badly for them. Of course, Asian militaries have historically placed primacy on massed attacks by relatively low-quality troops, using iron discipline and sheer volume to ensure that the thing works, after a fashion, albeit with a rate of casualties which would be totally unacceptable in a professional army.
r16
not deity
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 12,142
if the said badly trained troops are also "blessed" with tons of machismo and a whole range of cultural trappings about the fear of fear , they could prefer to stay and die instead of running away . So winning in a case where proffessionals would have every right to retreat only to be cut down in the pursuit phase .
doesn't always work . Naturally . Since ı have learned all my soldiering from movies there's this Battle of Kufra in Lutfi Akkad's Ömer Muhtar , where the Rebels tie their legs with chains to make sure that they will fight to the end . Didn't end well .
doesn't always work . Naturally . Since ı have learned all my soldiering from movies there's this Battle of Kufra in Lutfi Akkad's Ömer Muhtar , where the Rebels tie their legs with chains to make sure that they will fight to the end . Didn't end well .
Very Sandhurst. I like it.
I've yet to see that happen. I will note from history that the Japanese were famous for it during the war, as were Napoleon's imperial guard: I'm not aware of any situation in which it led to a victory, only those in which it led to an extremely bloody annihilation. I've also yet to see 'pursuit' in the classical cavalry-charge sense, in which the victorious side eagerly slaughters their broken enemy. When troops do withdraw, they do so fighting, and it doesn't make much tactical sense to pour ammunition into someone who has decided that he's had enough, anyway. Also remember that officers in nearly every case are at least more professional than their troops, so there aren't many cases where a conscript army will fail to sound a retreat which a regular army would have given: the people actually giving the order are usually the same. Of course, the officers in conscript militaries aren't necessarily known for their humanity towards their troops. I think I've already told my little story about that.
r16
not deity
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 12,142
have been out of work for years , can't afford a lot but saving bits and scraps . Just yesterday ı bought a first hand book that almost equals half of my monthly spending . From that ı have enough confidence to suggest from 1700 to 1900 the Ottoman Empire survived solely by fortress troops that didn't have a chance to bolt already .
the "slaughter" on the Highway from Kuwait to Basra could be proof that any F-18 or 16 could do a far better job than any Cavalry could have dreamed possible .
the "slaughter" on the Highway from Kuwait to Basra could be proof that any F-18 or 16 could do a far better job than any Cavalry could have dreamed possible .
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
Thanks for your response!
I have felt that this is the case, but had not enough personal experience to ensure myself in this view.
I read some works by Trevor N. Dupuy and he debunks the myth that attacker always suffers higher losses than defender.
Actually, as you wrote above, the advantage of time and space plays for the attacker. He has the initiative and "rules the battlefield".
