• Announcements

    • Robin

      Welcome!   03/05/2016

      Welcome, everyone, to the new 910CMX Community Forums. I'm still working on getting them running, so things may change.  If you're a 910 Comic creator and need your forum recreated, let me know and I'll get on it right away.  I'll do my best to make this new place as fun as the last one!
Sign in to follow this  
Stature

Story Monday January 9, 2017

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

I know. I was writing about that. I just find hard to believe it's still true in heavy infantry armor.

Just consider this.  What is the first thing some one about to go on a long hike does?   Adds more weight in the form of a backpack and gear.   Look at the amount of stuff a modern infantry man carried around in Iraq or Afghanistan.   Look at the amount of gear the Para's carried in their epic "yomp" in the Falklands.  Long distances with 100+ lb of stuff isn't that uncommon.

I will grant that for purely mechanical reasons armour below the knee is often not attached to the rest of the armour, if there at all.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Full-body armor is better balanced than an equivalent weight carried on one's back. Wearing a 30kg set of armor would put equivalent strain on your body to carrying an extra 30kg of fat on your body, which is much better balanced than carrying 30kg in a backpack or other container. If a 30kg-overweight person can run, then a non-overweight person in 30kg of armor can run just as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ijuin said:

Full-body armor is better balanced than an equivalent weight carried on one's back. Wearing a 30kg set of armor would put equivalent strain on your body to carrying an extra 30kg of fat on your body, which is much better balanced than carrying 30kg in a backpack or other container. If a 30kg-overweight person can run, then a non-overweight person in 30kg of armor can run just as well.

Good point.  I was just pointing out some historical cases of massively overloaded people move long distances, often fairly rapidly..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, mlooney said:

Good point.  I was just pointing out some historical cases of massively overloaded people move long distances, often fairly rapidly..

Not overloaded, technically. I am sure that in most armies that paid close attention to the standardisation of the soldiers' gear (which certainly includes the Roman Legions) they had worked out an optimal average load for their soldiers. Since the standard human design has not changed much in the past centuries, I am fairly certain that it has been a very similar number in the majority of the armies that put this amount of thought into things. I think the usual amount is 50 lbs. for gear and some left over to give the soldiers some extra carrying capacity at need. And as always, good soldiers will pass gear around to friends if some can't manage and others can manage a bit more.

This is not saying that Roman legions couldn't carry extra weight at need. They carried stuff like palisade poles on their packs so they could erect a bloody fortified encampment every night of a march without having to rely on having to search for suitable trees on their chosen camping location. It's just that the really smart armies made sure that the load versus marching capacity was as close to optimal as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note: Because what I'm saying is sort of negative, I would like to say that I do enjoy getting informations like this and if I'm sceptical it's not because I think you making it up or something ... it's just hard to believe.

On 01/14/2017 at 4:47 AM, mlooney said:
On 01/14/2017 at 0:25 AM, hkmaly said:

I know. I was writing about that. I just find hard to believe it's still true in heavy infantry armor.

Just consider this.  What is the first thing some one about to go on a long hike does?   Adds more weight in the form of a backpack and gear.   Look at the amount of stuff a modern infantry man carried around in Iraq or Afghanistan.   Look at the amount of gear the Para's carried in their epic "yomp" in the Falklands.  Long distances with 100+ lb of stuff isn't that uncommon.

When I'm going on long hike, I don't plan to run, much less expect to run as quickly as without load. Although it's true that I did had several experiences in form of trying to catch buss with lot of weight in backpack ... and considering my lack of training, it wasn't that bad.

On 01/14/2017 at 4:47 AM, mlooney said:

I will grant that for purely mechanical reasons armour below the knee is often not attached to the rest of the armour, if there at all.  

I would sort of expect that there are some straps on armor which are supposed to be fastened for battle and loosened for run or long walk. Not sure where those should be, as I don't have experience with armor, but it's something which would make sense.

19 hours ago, ijuin said:

Full-body armor is better balanced than an equivalent weight carried on one's back. Wearing a 30kg set of armor would put equivalent strain on your body to carrying an extra 30kg of fat on your body, which is much better balanced than carrying 30kg in a backpack or other container. If a 30kg-overweight person can run, then a non-overweight person in 30kg of armor can run just as well.

A 30kg overweight person usually can't run as fast as non-overweight person. Although it's good point. Armor is usually "balanced" higher than fat, considering there is barely any fat on shoulders, but yes, it's still better than backpack (which is still way better than anything else you can carry) and it's true that fat doesn't feel as heavy as similar amount of weight in pack.

Again, it's not about not running at all. It's about outrunning horse.

(I already said I overstated it with the "barely move".)

17 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

This is not saying that Roman legions couldn't carry extra weight at need. They carried stuff like palisade poles on their packs so they could erect a bloody fortified encampment every night of a march without having to rely on having to search for suitable trees on their chosen camping location. It's just that the really smart armies made sure that the load versus marching capacity was as close to optimal as possible.

Were Romans expected to RUN with those palisade poles? ... I think the main reason soldiers can carry so much is that they are more disciplined than horses. It's similar with ants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Were Romans expected to RUN with those palisade poles? ... I think the main reason soldiers can carry so much is that they are more disciplined than horses. It's similar with ants.

Certainly not in the sense of sprinting. Human endurance comes into play with long easy strides or a not too fast lope. They could sprint with that weight, just not very fast and only for very short distances. But the buggers could march for days at normal speed carrying all that crap, or even forced march for a few days -- at the end of which they would be exhausted and there would probably be a definite amount of casualties from exhaustion or people who lagged behind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

at the end of which they would be exhausted and there would probably be a definite amount of casualties from exhaustion or people who lagged behind.

Not speaking about the army waiting them after that march. That would likely be top reason for causalities, really. Especially if THEY didn't do the mistake of running.

... hmmm ... did sometime in history happened that two armies marched toward each other so long and so fast that neither was able to fight when they actually met?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Not speaking about the army waiting them after that march. That would likely be top reason for causalities, really. Especially if THEY didn't do the mistake of running.

... hmmm ... did sometime in history happened that two armies marched toward each other so fast that neither was able to fight when they actually met?

It really depends on the reason for the forced march. It might be to escape a battle. If the end of a march is across an already defended border of some kind, any pursuit would run into fresh troops behind heavy fortifications and the forced marchers would then be lying at their ease in their bunks while their comrades in arms did the heavy lifting.

Another reason might be to reach a very defensible position to hold it before the enemy could. It doesn't matter nearly as much if you are tired as long as you are tired at the top of some massive fortification where just scaling the walls or getting up the slope would take an epic effort in its own right.

Sometimes speed determines the outcome of battles or even wars. And sometimes it does it before there even is any fighting. Those five or ten extra miles a day you squeeze out of your troops may make all the difference.

As to history, I am almost sure that it has happened. Probably several times. It was likely glossed over by historians. But one thing is certain: in war, things get buggered up. Often very badly. Someone once described war as a long series of mistakes that ended when one commander at some key moment failed to make a mistake. An example of both cases, speed and mistakes: during WWII Leningrad was a key position on the Russian Front, a fortress city that stood at the centre of all logistics for everything north of Moscow. In mid-1941 it stood entirely undefended. The German general in that part of the front figured that it was in the bag and wanted a personal friend of his to have the honour of taking Leningrad. He held back all other troops in the vicinity and saved Leningrad for his friend. This friend was a massive slowpoke and he knew Leningrad stood empty, so why bother hurrying? Only when he arrived, the Russians had finally managed to scrape troops together to man the garrison and the fortifications. The door had slammed shut on the Germans and in a siege more than a year long where countless troops died they never did manage to force it open again. All for something they could have had for free if they could have been bothered to move a little faster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

It really depends on the reason for the forced march. It might be to escape a battle. If the end of a march is across an already defended border of some kind, any pursuit would run into fresh troops behind heavy fortifications and the forced marchers would then be lying at their ease in their bunks while their comrades in arms did the heavy lifting.

Another reason might be to reach a very defensible position to hold it before the enemy could. It doesn't matter nearly as much if you are tired as long as you are tired at the top of some massive fortification where just scaling the walls or getting up the slope would take an epic effort in its own right.

Of course. It seems obvious but maybe it was worth mentioning.

26 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

Sometimes speed determines the outcome of battles or even wars. And sometimes it does it before there even is any fighting. Those five or ten extra miles a day you squeeze out of your troops may make all the difference.

I would say that commanders are supposed to be clever enough to know when it's worth it. I would also say that based on history, in lot cases they were not.

27 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

As to history, I am almost sure that it has happened. Probably several times. It was likely glossed over by historians.

Those historians are lazy.

27 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

But one thing is certain: in war, things get buggered up. Often very badly. Someone once described war as a long series of mistakes that ended when one commander at some key moment failed to make a mistake. An example of both cases, speed and mistakes: during WWII Leningrad was a key position on the Russian Front, a fortress city that stood at the centre of all logistics for everything north of Moscow. In mid-1941 it stood entirely undefended. The German general in that part of the front figured that it was in the bag and wanted a personal friend of his to have the honour of taking Leningrad. He held back all other troops in the vicinity and saved Leningrad for his friend. This friend was a massive slowpoke and he knew Leningrad stood empty, so why bother hurrying? Only when he arrived, the Russians had finally managed to scrape troops together to man the garrison and the fortifications. The door had slammed shut on the Germans and in a siege more than a year long where countless troops died they never did manage to force it open again. All for something they could have had for free if they could have been bothered to move a little faster.

While related, World War II is extremely bad example for running soldiers as one of important lesson of World War II - which cost lot of lives especially of France soldiers - was that soldiers on foot are SLOW. Compared to motorized unit lead by tanks, I mean. Also, if they walk in tight formation, they are good targets for air support. And no, noone will be waiting for them to build trench.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hkmaly said:

While related, World War II is extremely bad example for running soldiers as one of important lesson of World War II - which cost lot of lives especially of France soldiers - was that soldiers on foot are SLOW. Compared to motorized unit lead by tanks, I mean. Also, if they walk in tight formation, they are good targets for air support. And no, noone will be waiting for them to build trench.

Tight formations were born out of a need to resist cavalry attacks. A tight formation with pikes or bayonets could resist cavalry charges. An open formation could not. Over the centuries as ranged weapons improved those tight formations grew increasingly expensive to maintain -- but the ever-present threat of a cavalry charge or even a tight formation of pikemen maintained the necessity for them.

About the time where the Civil War ended the balance finally began to tip in favour of open formations. The arrival of the Gatling and only a couple or three decades later the Maxim gun made the tight formations ridiculously expensive. That they chewed up cavalry charges long before they had a chance to arrive was also kind of important.

Tight formations are still used, but mostly for purposes of movement and maneuvering. If you know the enemy is coming, you scatter FAST. As to digging trenches, funny thing. The Russians were and are almost ridiculously fast at digging foxholes and trenches, probably because 1) they trained for it and 2) they really, really, really don't want to die. Those buggers can dig a basic trench in minutes. And other armies have troops that aren't far behind in digging speed.

As to speed, the German army worked hard on motorising everything they had but even in 1941 the majority of their troops still marched on foot. And of course fuel is always a concern. Don't underestimate the human foot. Even today, it is the most important part of the grunt soldier. o.o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

As to digging trenches, funny thing. The Russians were and are almost ridiculously fast at digging foxholes and trenches, probably because 1) they trained for it and 2) they really, really, really don't want to die. Those buggers can dig a basic trench in minutes. And other armies have troops that aren't far behind in digging speed.

That seem to prove what I said about noone waiting for them :)

18 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

As to speed, the German army worked hard on motorising everything they had but even in 1941 the majority of their troops still marched on foot.

Nevertheless, that armored minority proved to be extremely effective in 1940, especially in Ardennes. Case Yellow surprised everyone, overcoming the Allies' 4,000 armoured vehicles, many of which were better than German equivalents in armour and gun-power.[84] The French and British frequently used their tanks in the dispersed role of infantry support rather than concentrating force at the point of attack, to create overwhelming firepower (from wikipedia).

25 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

And of course fuel is always a concern.

Technically, yes. Practically, while it became bigger concern later, I think they had more than enough for initial offensive.

26 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

Don't underestimate the human foot. Even today, it is the most important part of the grunt soldier. o.o

Foot doesn't need to be afraid of losing the importance for grunt soldier. Grunt soldier however needs to be afraid of losing his importance. Even aircraft already lost it's position as fastest weapon ; in current and future wars, first strike is cybernetic. If enemy have any infrastructure to speak of, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

That seem to prove what I said about noone waiting for them :)

Nevertheless, that armored minority proved to be extremely effective in 1940, especially in Ardennes. Case Yellow surprised everyone, overcoming the Allies' 4,000 armoured vehicles, many of which were better than German equivalents in armour and gun-power.[84] The French and British frequently used their tanks in the dispersed role of infantry support rather than concentrating force at the point of attack, to create overwhelming firepower (from wikipedia).

Technically, yes. Practically, while it became bigger concern later, I think they had more than enough for initial offensive.

Foot doesn't need to be afraid of losing the importance for grunt soldier. Grunt soldier however needs to be afraid of losing his importance. Even aircraft already lost it's position as fastest weapon ; in current and future wars, first strike is cybernetic. If enemy have any infrastructure to speak of, of course.

Depending on what point you were trying to make. It came across to me as seeming to say that packed infantry without cover would be helpless targets to air attacks, which is of course true. My point is that well trained infantry will not stay packed and without cover for very long.

Agreed to the armored minority -- but the main army is still dependent on the speed of its slowest units, which will usually be the foot soldier. The armored minority could be used to create breaches and exploit them by cutting off supplies. The main force still needed to stomp the enemy, which would now be cut off and far easier to deal with. (Which also again shows that bit about speed in war. At times even a single rapidly moving unit in the right (or wrong) place can turn the tide of a battle.)

The initial offensive always has fuel enough -- unless you are a complete idiot. (Mussolini, for example.) But even so, it is still a concern to accumulate, mass and transport that fuel. Even if you have a huge surplus of fuel it will do no good if it does not get to where it is needed. See the bit about supply lines above.

Speaking as a grunt soldier, I am highly pleased with my role shifting to sitting in front of a computer and guiding a drone or launching a cybernetic attack. I am as many times previously mentioned a very lazy person. War with all the comforts of home and no-one shooting at me sounds far more comfortable than the marching in cold wet terrain and hauling bloody heavy squadmates around on stretchers that I did in boot camp.

...I still fondly remember the incident with that asshat who got himself drunk and ordered up on a stretcher where he couldn't mess up. Then the sergeant ordered us across a swampy area. Inevitably one of us stretcher bearers (me) lost their footing and deposited the moron in fifteen inches deep and COLD muddy swamp water. That drunken POS was having much less fun at our expense afterwards. And strangely, the guy who lost his footing didn't in any way get chewed out by the sergeant afterwards...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Depending on what point you were trying to make. It came across to me as seeming to say that packed infantry without cover would be helpless targets to air attacks, which is of course true. My point is that well trained infantry will not stay packed and without cover for very long.

Well, I though that it was World War II which proved the need to train infantry to not stay packed, but maybe French soldiers were just not well trained. Or, their training wasn't up-to-date.

14 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Agreed to the armored minority -- but the main army is still dependent on the speed of its slowest units, which will usually be the foot soldier. The armored minority could be used to create breaches and exploit them by cutting off supplies. The main force still needed to stomp the enemy, which would now be cut off and far easier to deal with.

I'm sure no grunt soldier would object if that "stomping" was reduced to taking prisoners. But, yes, so far it seems that even after cybernetic, air and armored attack, enemies don't tend to give up.

14 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

(Which also again shows that bit about speed in war. At times even a single rapidly moving unit in the right (or wrong) place can turn the tide of a battle.)

But in modern war, it will rarely come to this rapidly moving unit being running soldiers. If you need speed, you will choose something faster ... if you HAVE any choice.

14 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

The initial offensive always has fuel enough -- unless you are a complete idiot.

Obviously.

14 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

(Mussolini, for example.)

:) No stupidity is so bad there wouldn't be example for it.

14 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Speaking as a grunt soldier, I am highly pleased with my role shifting to sitting in front of a computer and guiding a drone or launching a cybernetic attack.

As a grunt soldier, you will need to requalify or wait for walking mechas.

14 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

the marching in cold wet terrain and hauling bloody heavy squadmates around on stretchers that I did in boot camp.

I have a strong suspicion it will take lot of time before the boot camps would be upgraded to reflect the reality of current war. After all, the main purpose of boot camp isn't to learn how to march in cold wet terrain ; it's to learn to follow orders even if they are from idiots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this