As I understand one possible development of a nuclear war, it could happen in phases that closely follow each other:
- Warning shots: one or both sides demonstrate willingness to employ nuclear weapons.
- Tactical and operational strikes: targeting military formations and facilities
- Counternuclear strikes: targeting nuclear weapons capability like silos, airfields etc.
- Countervalue strikes: targeting population centers
The three first phases are indeed necessary from purely military point of view, but what exactly is the rationale that the strikes will move on to cities? Why is there still not a mechanic of discouragement when targeting value will open up your own civilians as legitimate targets? What encourages striking against civilians in a nuclear war?
Then, why is it that his is expected specifically in a nuclear war? Why is it not, at least so strongly, expected that conventional war will spill automatically into countervalue targeting? If it is expected, why is it discussed less than the expectation of nuclear war going countervalue?
We know the reason that the One Ring had to be destroyed was that Sauron had the ability to win through conventional warfare even without the One Ring. Did he depend on men (Easterlings, Haradrim, Corsairs of Umbar) more than orcs and trolls? Would Sauron have been able to defeat the Free Peoples if either Men or Orcs were absent from his military?
By conventional warfare and aliens, I mostly mean pretty much the movie Battle: Los Angeles (2011). i.e. taking out communications satellites and disrupting our power grid, and sending in a massive invasion force of ground and air forces to the surface of the planet.
I guess if they really wanted the whole planet, to colonize, that would make the most sense right? They don't want to destroy the resources or atmosphere with nukes or planetary bombardment, and if they actually want their kind to live on the planet someday, they'll need to take out the humans and set up an occupying force. But wouldn't that scenario best be undertaken with germ warfare? Just start introducing diseases engineered to kill off the human species in a number of years or generations?
Can anyone come up with some viable, somewhat logical reasons for semi-conventional alien warfare?
Paras talk a big game but is this role not obsolete now? I can't think of any realistic scenario where airborne infantry would be the better option over helicopters or anything else.
What has digital warfare done and how has it changed conventional warfare?
How will wars be fought in the future?
I'm wondering what roles Special Operations Forces would play in peer or near-peer conventional warfare. It seems like the abilities of special operations units would be sharply curtailed in a peer conflict due to the sensor rich environment and amount of firepower being used. Would they be limited mostly to raids and infiltration? What about training saboteurs and partisans behind enemy lines? What changes have commands like US-SOCOM made in order to stay relevant in a more conventional conflict?
Which specific nations benefit from conventional warfare? I’m excluding power armor nations like Brotherhood and enclave. Obviously the NCR is one of them but are there any others?
Does anyone know how the mobile fortifications actually work? I’ve made some, but can’t find any battalion to put in a template, nor structures that use them. Am I just being dumb?
Assume no US, Chinese, nor Russian Intervention. NO NUKES!
Just the Two Koreas Against Each other.
Greetings. So I've been playing The Elder Scrolls Total War mod for Medieval II: Total War, and it has made me contemplate just how conventional warfare would look in the world of the Elder Scrolls. I've been playing a campaign as the Telvanni, and the master wizards (the general bodyguards) alone can destroy entire armies just with their spells. That's all well and good, as destruction magic is essentially cannons and artillery, just on a more accurate and lethal scale.
But what about miscellaneous magic? Things like jump and levitate? How would that affect warfare? What would be stopping a general from commissioning a team of alchemists to create a large number of low quality potions of levitate or jump, getting a small force of 100 - 200 infantry with these potions, hop over the fortifications and open the gates from the inside to allow the rest of the army access? What about water breathing? Say an army was laying siege to Balmora. Just hand out a load of low quality water breathing potions to your troops and swim into Balmora via the river under cover of darkness.
Would conventional castle-like fortifications be rendered completely obsolete? Especially since every man and his dog is capable of learning and using magic, or doing so through cheap potions. Magic isn't a rare and protected power like it is in some other fantasy worlds, such as The Witcher's, Middle Earth or Robert E. Howard's Hyborean Age. How would you overcome this sort of magic? I imagine a Ghostfence-like dome that completely covers a city with a roof (like The Domed City in ELEX), so levitation and jump magics would be rendered useless. We don't see any kind of magical fortifications like that though, other than the Ghostfence which can be easily circumvented through levitation.
This is not meant to be taken too seriously, but just some thoughts I've had. Other than The Elder Scrolls Total War mod, there are in-universe books in the various games that talk about warfare and army compositions in a conventional sense, so I'm just trying to picture how it would work with such rampant access to magic and potions everywhere.
EDIT: also another thought. What would prevent master enchanters from creating permanent levitation amulets/rings, and supplying them to archers or battle mages? Effectively creating a fantasy air force of sorts.
After seeing Karma Charger's latest video on a M1 Garand secondary for Soldier (this one), I felt inspired to do an ironically unconventional weapon set for Soldier: one that would swap his rocket launcher for a rifle.
- The Old-School Shooter: (Primary Weapon)
This would be an authentic M1 Garand, which Soldier has taken pretty good care of despite the many straps on its stock and couple of chips on the rest of the wooden parts. Its taunt would be the same as the Rocket Launcher's.
* 15 ammo per clip. 60 ammo carried in total.
* Shoots bullets instead of rockets.
* Deals 60 base damage (180 crit and 81 mini-crit), 0.25 seconds attack interval, reloads in 2 seconds (Soldier jams his thumb everytime), fairly low spread.
This weapon seeks to turn Soldier into a close-to-mid-range fighter more focused on single-target damage and accuracy. He loses the ability to rocket-jump and splash damage, but gains consistent damage. I even considered giving this weapon a "15% faster move speed on wearer" stat, but considered it would make him a bit too oppressive.
- The Coordinated Barrage: (Secondary Banner)
An overfilled ammo bag with rockets, grenades and high caliber bullets sticking out of it. It has several stitches and patches on it. It would use the juggling taunt other banner use.
+ +100% max primary ammo on wearer.
~ Provides an offensive buff that allows all nearby allies to fire their weapons without using any of their ammo, preventing the need to reload. (Requires 600 damage and lasts for 5 seconds)
This is another offensive banner that would allow your team to spam the enemy, which may be more effective than the Buff Banner in some situations, but worse in others. Also, note that if you're using it with the Beggar's Bazooka, it instead doubles your reload speed without it taking a toll in your carried ammo.
- The Covert Cutter: (Melee Weapon)
It's a machette, there's some dirt, blood and rust on it. It would use the Kamikaze taunt.
+ On hit: gain recharge your secondary weapon (if you use any of the shotgun or the Righteous Bison, your current clip gets recharged or recover 6 shots of carried ammo if your clip is full) or 150% extra banner charge (gain 2.5 times the damage you deal with it as Rage for your banner).
+ Your secondary and melee weapons deploy 20% faster.
- -10% damage penalty.
- 25% slower swinging speed.
- No random critical hits.
This we
... keep reading on reddit ➡Also, how are the crew of equipment redundant in counter insurgency missions, like anti-tank and even artillery to some extent, employed during the mission?
Did the British, or European observers, feel that Washington's attack in Trenton was "unsporting" or even illegal? My understanding is that winter was generally the "off-season" for war. Surely it must have been at least a bit atypical to attack an enemy force in the dead of night on a winter holiday?
(Sorry for asking a question here, but r/askhistorians did not have an answer for me.)
EDIT: Sorry, the title is supposed to say "century" not "venture". Damn autocorrect.
A thought has been running through my head lately surrounding the notion that nuclear warfare between states has increasingly/permanently made conventional warfare between recognized states unlikely or impossible.
But I feel dissatisfied with assertion.
For the purpose of this discussion, let us assume that all nuclear weapon possessing states are completely aware of mutually assured destruction and perfectly understand the consequences of it, thus (the argument goes) making the exchange of nuclear warheads via ICBMs/SLBMs and strategic bombers so absurd and preposterous that such exchange could not logically take place.
Under that scenario (albeit with completely rational actors striving for pure state survival and self-interest), wouldn't conventional warfare become even more likely with nuclear weapons around than without them? I understand that this particular assertion of mine flies in the face of history (so far), but in my own mind the logic always seems to flow this way.
Shouldn't the presence of mutually assured destruction, making nuclear warfare impossible (or nearly impossible), make the clashing of conventional forces in all out combat against each other sans nuclear deterrent the next best option for decision-makers on both sides in the protection of their strategic interests?
Am I wrong here in assuming that? If I'm right, why haven't we seen it so far since 1945? If I'm wrong, then why must MAD extend to action by conventional forces? Can't tanks roll and fighters shoot each other out of the sky in large numbers without the silos or boomers going hot or Major Kong riding the bomb with his cowboy hat on?
Hey everyone, this is my first attempt at making a story post on reddit, let me know what you all think of it. Here we go.
We are the M'batri. Nomads, loners, banished from the overall galactic community. Our fleets are practically derelict, running on old, outdated technology, dimensional warp engines barely running, environmental systems that were about as reliable as our ancient orbital weaponry.
The reason for our persona non grata status in the galaxy?
Around 5 centuries ago, our race decided that our lot wasnt good enough anymore. We wanted more. We wanted all of it. We began a massive military campaign, unlike anything the galaxy had ever seen at the time.
The other races were completely unprepared for our hordes as they struck deep into the heart of the core worlds.
Our fleets came in droves, blotting out the suns of worlds. Our armies marched through cities, annexing planet after planet.
Our strength was not in the power of of guns, nor the armour of our ships. It was in overwhelming numbers, simply drowning the other races in them. They were unprepared for them.
Eventually it came to a point where the only race fit to stand against us were the Altaen. We despised the Altaen. Always seemingly ordering the other races of the galaxy around like servants in a rich household. The had a habit of making ridiculous agreements like what weapons should be used in warfare, what exchange rates between galactic currencies should be and the number of ships each race could have.
We came to the Altaen homeworld at the peak of our military might. Our hordes smashed through their orbital defences, making landfall within moments of entering their system.
That was where the Altaen unleashed their final card, their ace in the hole.
While we were busy trampling the smaller, less significant races, the Alyaen utilized the brief respite to uplift and equip a primitive race from a planet named Earth. They made an agreement with them. They lend the Altaens their manpower, and the Altaens would give them technology.
They called themselves "humans". We came to call them "demons".
The Altaens unleashed the humans upon us, and we were caught completely flatflooted.
For the first time, we faced a race that was able to go toe to toe with us. For nearly all of their brief existence on their homeworld, humans waged war. They lived, and breathed conventional warfare. We quickly discovered that making landfall was our folly. They humans annihilated us.
It came down
... keep reading on reddit ➡I really want to love Squad and other squadlikes (Hell Let Loose, Post Scriptum etc.) that borrow many mechanics from it. However, I feel like they fundamentally fail at what they are setting out to do, especially in terms of near-peer-conflict.
Squad prides itself as being a tactical shooter with large maps, good teamwork, logistics systems, base building, and realistic tactics and combat. The problem is that while many of these elements work pretty well in a low-intensity counter-insurgency (COIN) scenario, as the ones depicted by early Squad, they start heavily working against each other once they are moved into a more conventional warfare situation depicted by the later Squad patches and the WW2 squadlikes.
The problems stem mostly from large maps, base-building and logistics, which are all pretty heavily intertwined. The base building needs a logistic system to be limited in a way that makes it balanced, while the logistics system needs large maps to limit the speed of base-building and to make the logistics aspect of the game exciting, as the supply lines need to be long enough so they can't be easily protected. Large maps also enforce teamwork and sticking with your section leader, and having a decent section leader, as failing to do so means you have to make your way to the front from a long way away. They also reinforce the COIN gameplay, where the combat is deliberately spread out and FOB's or Firebases dominate the battlespace, and where the enemy can come from any side.
However, this falls apart in near-peer combat. Where the large maps facilitate the sporadic and fragmented battlespace of COIN, they work against the feel of high-intensity near-peer conflict. The points of pressure, or schwerpunkts, are absent from the map as the large scales of the maps combined with the small number of players doesn't tend to create any focal points. The games rarely guide the flow of battle towards certain areas or bottlenecks. The dispersed players cannot form a frontline, so enemy sections slip easily to the friendly rear and then attack objectives from the back whilst encountering very little resistance. While this can be seen as immersive in the fractured battlespace of COIN operations, in conventional warfare it only serves to further rid the battlespace of focal points and force concentration. There is no need to fight over natural bottlenecks like river crossings if you know that you can bypass them with no resistance from somewhere else on
... keep reading on reddit ➡AGENCIA BRASIL -- Brazilian Military says Task Completed at Alkebulan Academy of Conventional Warfare
[July/August 2034]
(ABUJA) A spokesman for the Brazilian embassy in Alkebulan has released a short statement congratulating the Armed Forces on completing their training mission in Alkebulan.
Work began in 2023 to construct the Academy of Conventional Warfare in Kaduna, Alkebulan. Since then, Brazilian officers have trained thousands of African counterparts and improve capabilities.
The statement said that the mission was completed and that Brazilian military personnel would be home by the end of August.
An example, The standard practice for reacting to contact would be to apply a base of fire while a second team moves around to flank the enemy and push through. In a conventional war setting, wouldnt the enemy be very well aware of this and would anticipate and prepare against such maneuvers? Especially since the US military’s field manuals are public information, what’s stopping the enemy from understanding the way the US military works and preparing for that in advance?
not something that's alt-history, or alt-history going into the alt-present and the alt-future, but something set in the future from when it was created
What the title says. Looking for a good nation v nation RHS ALiVE mission.
Reposting here since it seems a better fit and /r/askhistorians wasn't able to answer it.
Did NATO ever propose utilizing the highly urbanized nature of the region to blunt Soviet advances? If so, did the Soviets have conventional counters to it?
On a broader level I suppose my assumption that urbanized areas can contribute significantly to defence in contemporary warfare is up for examination. While cities can act as strongpoints that hold weapon systems capable of exerting control over certain areas they still require supply and communications lines that will have to be defended.
We know the reason that the One Ring had to be destroyed was that Sauron had the ability to win through conventional warfare even without the One Ring. Did he depend on men (Easterlings, Haradrim, Corsairs of Umbar) more than orcs and trolls? Would Sauron have been able to defeat the Free Peoples if either Men or Orcs were absent from his military?
