The official TO&E generally have most of a squad or platoon issued rifles but SMGs for commanders. Of course in practice no army ever follow that to the letter and some armies like the Soviets would officially form full SMG units, the question still stands though. When armies tell troops in the field to remove rank insignia and not to salute so enemy snipers don't identify officers, why have such an identifiable marker?

As I understand it, the transition from muzzle loaders to breach loading rifles happened fairly quickly after the American Civil War, even for smaller powers. Part of this was due to conversions like the Enfield-Snider. Converting an old muzzle loader into a breach loader will always be cheaper than producing a new breach loader.

But what about the purpose built breach loaders? Like how did the Austrian Werndl rifle compare to the earlier Lorenz? Or the Martini-Henry to the Enfield muzzle loaders? Or the Chassepot to the previous French muzzle loaders?

Were the rifles themselves more expensive or was it primarily the ammo? Because I know that metallic cartridge production was a big concern early on, which contributed to France using paper cartridges for the Chassepot.

Hi all, reading through Gunfire! British Artillery in World War 2 by Stig H. Moberg and they make mention of rockets being used on landing ships in the Italian landings in 1943, the Normandy landings in 1944 but it wasn't until 1944 March that a 5 inch rocket would be developed.

However, it was the Canadians who used them in Northern Europe in late 1944 and 1945, with a quote to finish it off "Positive experience achieved made rockets again a permanent complement to traditional artillery and have remained so even today."

But I've never heard of a British rocket force and the British don't seem to use an MLRS system like the US does in the modern day (or a Katyusha style truck in the Soviet style), so the question is:

Were the rockets actually effective?

Do the British still use them in an artillery role? (Post WW2, Cold War, and then present day?)

Edit: Didn't edit title after writing this post. I think it biases the question, very much my mistake.

Seems like the only way they'd have it worse is if they were fighting it in the era of plate armor and horse messengers.

But they were still carrying heavy stuff back and forth and making immense use of horses for day to day operations.

And also several accounts I've read of the civil war seem to emphasize the lack of wilderness/military experience of a lot of Northerners compared to the South where survivor/officer culture is much more baked in.

So imagine being born and raised in a temperate and dry climate in a major city and then having to spend years of your life in the exact opposite

Insect born diseases?

Injuries exacerbated by inability to dry off?

Mounted divisions/artillery sinking in muddy terrain?

General loss of morale due to perpetually being hot, wet, and bitten?

What about the Confederate forces?

I’ve heard that despite railroads being fixed targets for an enemy, it is still effective to use trains for logistical transportation because railroads are easy to repair and rail transport is very efficient. What might not be easy to fix is vital cargo that is destroyed from a derailment. If trains take a long time to stop and travel very fast, how do they detect sabotaged or bombed train tracks and stop the train before being derailed?

On July 1 41 German field army had a strength of 4,025,000 men in 202 divisions, on year later they had 220 divisions but only 3,950,000 men. On 1 july 43 they had 4,480,000 men in 245 divisions. Taking into account the wartime strengths and organization in effect on July 1, 1941, 245 divisions should have represented 5,100,000 men.

Did it offer any advantages compared to the American (and later modern Chinese) procurement systems or was it simply too bogged down by bureaucracy?

Is it measured against stated wargoals? Implicit ones? Or is it just an arbitrary measure dependant on the conflict?

For instance if measured by stated wargoals, Russia lost the war 3 days in when they failed to take Kyiv. Now, russians would see them taking Slovyansk as an astounding victory.

So which is it?

During the late cold war, large chunks of NATO had... extremely limited BVR capability. West Germany, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, and the Netherlands were entirely limited to heater-only through the entire Cold War, as was the entire F-16 fleet(pre-AMRAAM). Obviously, F-5s are never going to be carrying Sparrows, but plenty of nations were moving to F-16s, and they clearly had the capacity to be upgraded for SARH illumination, even if they just... weren't.

If this is a result of the belief that IR missiles were better for air combat than SARH missiles... why? I certainly wouldn't want to be in an F-16 while Mig-23s take potshots at me with R-24s- even if I was capable of perfectly dodging every single missile(which seems like a large gamble), it still means that I'm going to be spending all of my time dodging missiles rather than doing whatever I was flying to do, like intercepting that incoming strike package- and it's not as if the Warsaw Pact didn't have heaters of their own.

Furthermore, if IR missiles were deemed good enough to outfit entire national air forces, why build F-15A with... absolutely zero countermeasure dispensers, beyond what you can shove into the airbrake? It's not as if they're terribly expensive or heavy, and while flares aren't a magic I-win button against an R-60M(or R-24T, or R-40TD), I'd still much rather have them than not.

What led to this contradiction in design?

I have to admit that World in Conflict was the game that began my interest in military, and IMO it was relatively realistic compared to other RTS of its time. In the game, it started with Seattle being invaded by Soviet forces (full tank and mechanized divisions) in 1989 using disguised cargo ships at the port, quickly overpowering the defenders and then took over the rest of the state. The game eventually ended with a successful US counterattack to retake Seattle.

However, how would that have turned out in real life? Instead of micro-managing infantry, IFV, tanks and helicopters from above, I think it would get far more chaotic with armed civilian resisting and people (especially invaders) being lost in downtown. Buildings could block radio signal and abandoned vehicles blocking roads and so on.

1. If Bill the Vietnam vet has "joined" a rag-tag NG platoon with his pre-1986 M16A1, would the officers let him stick to the unit, or just have him disarmed and sent to the rear with other refugees? Could they legally do so if Bill refuses to leave to defend his home?

2. Would the USAF level an entire block if there is clear enemy activity, disregarding the damage to property? We know that was done in Baghdad or Belgrade, but what about leveling the Space Needle to kill some scouts and snipers? At what level could they make such decision?

3. Was GPS already in common use by the National Guard back then? Would they ask local residents to lead the way if they agree to help? Are there supply depots set up inside the city in case they got cut off from outside? I know China did this during the height of Soviet hostility, with barracks and police stations acting as depots in big cities.

4. Assuming the city has set up resistance lead by the police force and veterans, can the mayor or police chief legally command such a force? If the Guards have reached them, do they get to join the NG, or just disarmed and evacuated?

I have looked up but couldn't find much about such topics!

Force desgin and procurement for ground forces seems really challenging right now given how fast drones, sensors, and counter UAS is developing.

How did navies deal with the even worse problem for rapid innovation in the 19th century.

It seems like an investment nightmare ordering a class of expensive slow to build capital ships that might be obsolete in 5-10 years.

Armor, engines, guns, torpedoes...even at one point rams.

Britain seems to have been fortunate enough to just eat the cost and could find use for older ships in patrol and colonial duties. But if your smaller, Spain, Ottomans, Austria, Italy, Russia...is it just that there was no good answer and you just had to risk wasting all that investment?

This particular topic might be too niche for a book in itself, but I'm especially curious to know if anyone has written extensively on the the U.S. switch to 9mm in the '80s.

Im am particularly talking about how many men makes a team and a squad not just the function.

Each of them was seems have a bit same armament and some of them have a bit same role been used during war

Why there so much categories of this class? Is there reason why they called this

Hello, my mother found and gave me my grandpa's military resume and I finally found a way to possibly make his dying wish come true, and wondering if any people who are bright with American military history could help me.

My late grandfather became pow at leyte island at the end of WW2. He went to steal food one day and was captured by an American soldier, however, the soldier didn't kill him or punish him, he started bringing more bread to my grandpa while he was in captivity. My grandpa only knew "chocolate" and "gum", and didn't know how to say thank you to the American soldier at that time. He didn't remember the soldier's name. When my grandpa was on his death bed (23ys ago or so), he told me that he wanted me to find him and tell him "thank you" because he couldn't say it, because he didn't know the word at that time. My grandpa's ship was attacked and sank, but rescued by American unit as well.

Here is what I know:

*2nd Independent Maintenance Unit, 10th Field Air Depot (Unit Code: I-8355 / Yoneda Unit), Sergeant / Sergeant Major (Technical NCO)

*Mid-to-late 1945 (near the end of the war)

*Watercraft transfer from Negros Island back to Leyte Island

I would love to know any information about which American force rescued him, and which pow camp he was most likely taken so I could possibly find the soldier and tell his family thank you (assuming the soldier is already deceased given the timeframe)

If you guys interested in, I do have pictures of his records but are in Japanese.

I also would love to know what subreddit/threads I should be asking this question if this isn't a right one.

Thanks!

Since WW2 or so basically all enlisted aircrew have been NCOs. How does this work exactly for recruitment, do they get selected from other enlisted personnel, do they get to directly enlist as NCOs, or something else?

EDIT: so it turns out i assumed the practice of having every enlisted person in an bomber crew be an NCO that existed when bombers still had large crews applied to other types of enlisted air crew and survived until later it turns out thst wasn't the case

Why couldn't the cavalry run up to point blank range with a loaded pistol/carbine/musket, shoot and then ride back?

Throughout history there are examples of insurgents, and anyone fighting a stronger force, hiding amongst the local civilian populace, a tactic to which some figures have responded to in a rather bloody fashion (Nobunaga, Suharto). My question is, how do you exactly counter this while minimising collateral casualties/damage as much as possible? Precision Strikes? Hearts and Minds campaigns? Examples are welcomed.

If someone from SF is behind army lines in civilian clothes doing intelligence gathering, are they a spy, or a soldier protected by the Geneva Convention?