Steadfast men that will maintain a disciplined shield wall in the face of enemy arrows and stones.
Officers of noble birth, low born curs trying to give orders.
Pay.
Devastate the enemy country enough to force an engagement.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
Steadfast men that will maintain a disciplined shield wall in the face of enemy arrows and stones.
Officers of noble birth, low born curs trying to give orders.
Pay.
Devastate the enemy country enough to force an engagement.
To adjust Anatur's ideals:
At the bare minimum, it would be ideal if the soldier was potentially self-sufficient in the wild (most farmers have some experience at this), had reliable equipment which he could use properly (many farmers had firearms experience for varmint control), and was willing to follow orders (which most factory workers could do), but not to the point of getting himself killed for no good reason, or doing silly stuff like disemboweling either civilians or officers.
That means, enough intelligence to get by on his own, enough intelligence to operate equipment and understand orders, but also enough intelligence to know when an order is stupid and is about to get you killed, and to know when not following the order will get others killed.
That means, enough restraint to avoid killing that officer who issued the stupid order in the first place, or to take his frustrations out on civilians.
That means, enough initiative to do whatever it takes to survive on his own in the wild, or change the stupid plan sufficiently to carry out the mission without getting killed, or getting others killed, in the process.
That means, physically fit enough to handle situations in the wild, or whatever it takes to execute orders and survive.
In ancient warfare, where the shieldwall or unbroken line of pikes and spears provided mutual protection, adherence to orders and the ability to maintain formation were absolutely critical, and a failure to carry them out potentially threatened everyone around you as well. Soldiers still march in parade formation to "prove" their competence and discipline before their reviewers or employers (or the public who is voting to maintain military spending levels), just as they did thousands of years ago.
In modern warfare, with no battle line, the flexibility to carry out the mission despite changes in the situation are far more important than a slavish adherence to orders. With modern equipment, it takes at least as much or more training, and possibly more intelligence than strength, to get the most out of it. A core of professionals is virtually required to maintain sufficient expertise in the more complex aspects, even though a new recruit can learn to use a rifle and carry out basic maneuvers in a matter of a few weeks or months.
At the bare minimum, it would be ideal if the soldier was potentially self-sufficient in the wild (most farmers have some experience at this), had reliable equipment which he could use properly (many farmers had firearms experience for varmint control), and was willing to follow orders (which most factory workers could do), but not to the point of getting himself killed for no good reason, or doing silly stuff like disemboweling either civilians or officers.
That means, enough intelligence to get by on his own, enough intelligence to operate equipment and understand orders, but also enough intelligence to know when an order is stupid and is about to get you killed, and to know when not following the order will get others killed.
That means, enough restraint to avoid killing that officer who issued the stupid order in the first place, or to take his frustrations out on civilians.
That means, enough initiative to do whatever it takes to survive on his own in the wild, or change the stupid plan sufficiently to carry out the mission without getting killed, or getting others killed, in the process.
That means, physically fit enough to handle situations in the wild, or whatever it takes to execute orders and survive.
In ancient warfare, where the shieldwall or unbroken line of pikes and spears provided mutual protection, adherence to orders and the ability to maintain formation were absolutely critical, and a failure to carry them out potentially threatened everyone around you as well. Soldiers still march in parade formation to "prove" their competence and discipline before their reviewers or employers (or the public who is voting to maintain military spending levels), just as they did thousands of years ago.
In modern warfare, with no battle line, the flexibility to carry out the mission despite changes in the situation are far more important than a slavish adherence to orders. With modern equipment, it takes at least as much or more training, and possibly more intelligence than strength, to get the most out of it. A core of professionals is virtually required to maintain sufficient expertise in the more complex aspects, even though a new recruit can learn to use a rifle and carry out basic maneuvers in a matter of a few weeks or months.
I simply consider it a valuable asset if soldiers cut off from the main force fight to the death to die down the enemy giving the main force more time to react.
I consider it a more valuable asset if soldiers cut off from the main force inflict enough mayhem to draw off enemy patrols to hunt them down, yet manage to return to their own lines alive. Fighting to the death is rarely "efficient" or "effective", although if there is no avenue of escape, and the enemy has a nasty habit of mistreating or killing prisoners, it may be the only viable option. At the very least, surrender to an honorable enemy forces that enemy to dedicate men to escort the prisoners, who may later be exchanged. Getting shot in a hopeless situation only costs the enemy some ammunition.
The ideal of war is NOT to kill the enemy, and DEFINITELY not to die for your own country, it's to force the enemy to surrender, to achieve the overall strategic or political goal. Suicidal troops are generally a poor way to reach those goals.
- 3
Now I remembered where I read the quote, about Roman agriculture here:
As Marcus Cato wrote "when they would praise a worthy man their praise took this form: 'Good husband good farmer'; it is from the farming class that the bravest men and the sturdiest soldiers come."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_agriculture#Aristocracy_and_the_land
As Marcus Cato wrote "when they would praise a worthy man their praise took this form: 'Good husband good farmer'; it is from the farming class that the bravest men and the sturdiest soldiers come."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_agriculture#Aristocracy_and_the_land
Better if every man can achieve what Simo Häyhä called Belaja Smert ( the White Death) did.Sniper who killed about 500-750 enemy soldiers during ww2.
Sniping a bunch of disorganised poorly trained peasants dressed in very visible brown coats from a mile away in the frozen snowy tundra isnt as impressive as it might first apear.
Honestly Simo would have had a way harder time if his job had been to snipe 500 rabbits.
Honestly Simo would have had a way harder time if his job had been to snipe 500 rabbits.
Worked for the Soviets.
Besides even Bastogne could be classified as soldiers fighting to the death to keep the enemy preocupied while the high command figures out what to do.
Aggressive and decisive troops with enough initiative to act swiftly when an opportunity appears.
Or disciplined troops who do not panic and break, and are capable of following orders quickly and effectively.
Or disciplined troops who do not panic and break, and are capable of following orders quickly and effectively.
Well, the opinion seemed to be that even if the artillery "missed" and you properly hopped into the nearest ditch you nowadays were still dead.
There some advantages to simple approaches, but having much of the technical stuff around does tend to be helpful. It shouldn't be overdone, and compromises need to be reached to make it reliable but it's hard giving any sort of hard limit ^^; I imagine the goal of modern infantry would be that they got some sort of transportation as close as possible to their target and then don't march hundreds of miles, at least. And, again, right equipment for the right job ^^;
Naw, that's the least; properly trained is using all equipment assigned properly; and of course first-aid, tactics, camouflage, who knows what else. It should be treated like a complex profession, not like a "it's the job for the most stupid of us!".
In most cases I'd say specialists > squads, but you might want some specifically trained for, dunno, difficult escort missions, covert insertion behind enemy lines or that sort of thing, were strong unit cohesion might be very important. But generally, a bunch of very professional soldiers with the same training standards should be able to work together, I venture ^^;
Well, not quite? Obedient means that they're trying to do their orders, disciplined also describes how they're going about it. But yeah, you don't want your soldiers to sit there thinking "mmh, maybe the other guys are actually the good ones?" Some sort of "blind obedience" is necessary. I'd even say it's better for the soldiers, too: don't think too much about the people you're killing, follow orders ^^; Fanaticism though probably isn't productive. Too large a risk to backfire in various ways.
Just put up a bunch of straw-dummiesWho does that though?
Some non-infantry guy? 'Nonfantry'?
Well first of all he used no teleskopic sight . He did his mission alone most of the time in minus 20-40 C.Red Army send out their own snipers to take him out.They come back emty handed or NOT AT ALL.Not every Russians had brown coats they to had white snow uniforms.So I will call it impressive .
The problem is of legend about Simo Hayha is that is based entirely on the Finnish sources. And you never can use your side estimates of the enemy losses as anything real. Especially as Finland used Simo as propaganda tool.
Did not the Red Army the same thing with their snipers used them as propaganda tools.Are all kills by Vasily Zaytsev in Stalingrad comfirmed by the Germans?How about all the other 9 Russians in the top ten list for snipers are they confirmed.
You can never assure the kills assigned to one name, because the other side does not keep records that way.
So the best you will get would be a casualty list highlighting who got killed by single shots to the head or chest.
But even that is unlikely. Most likely you get a casualty list broken down (if it is broken down) by artillery/gun shot/others and a rider in the AAR that sniper fire was significant contributing factor in the failure of the operation or a significant hindrance.
Then if you got documentation placing the sniper in the area it looks good.
What though if the sniper is so good and so deadly that his sniping is indisitinguishable from ambushes?
What if an officer does not report the sniper fire?
If we go down the route of 'you can never trust the enemy', all kills are lies. In fact all heroism in war is, since the case where the other side will document it too are very, very rare.
I propose a compromise.
We know that the Russians suffered horrible from sky mobile infantry and aimed rifle fire.
We know that both those things inflicted really bad casualties (The Winter War is one of the few wars with legitimate 5:1 casualty figures) and also that Simon Hayha operate as a sniper had a reasonably good reputation among his fellow soldiers.
As it is proven that he had opportunity to reach the numbers he did (there were so many Russians killed and infact there were excessivly more killed and the sniping was so bad it reinvigorated the Soviet sniper programm) it does not seem so dubious to accept his numbers as as genuine as possible under the circumstances.
Yeah, it is the same story with snipers and similar soldiers all around the world. Sniper kill claims probably most unreliable sort of kill claims.
Oh, I do not doubt the Finiish snipers/ambushers efficiency. It is documented. I doubt Simo Hayme personal kill count.If someone claims an achievement of such legendary proportions he should have a good proof of that. But Finns historically didn't want the proof, they wanted a hero. So they made a hero.He was probably a very efficient sniper, maybe the best but official claims are ridiculous.
How many would seem likely to you?
Zaytsev claims over 200 in about a month, while German snipers did that level over the war (Hetzneauer 345 for the whole war, Sutkus 209, Wirnsberger 64 for 2 years) their requirements were notoriously stringent (sniper + observer as a witness plus signature from the battallion commander) which has prompted claims that German sniper kills are under reported by 200 to 500%.
So what is a 'believable' number and why isn't Hayha?
Well my post was 'Murrican thinking, where the military is an expeditionary force who's members are prohibitively expensive to train, equip, deploy and support. If you are defending the homeland or fighting a total war abroad you're going to have to be less picky and train the old, the weak, the dullard and the family man to an acceptable level and accept the higher fallout rate. If you are to the point of raising Volksturm or Category D divisions to throw back an invader, most of your infantry are likely to become casualties before combat fatigue, training injuries or family crises take a large toll anyway.
The one thing I would not compromise on is psychological or pathological issues. If armed men are hearing voices, have paranoid delusions or other disconnections with reality it will end badly for everyone. Chronic truants become deserters, habitual thieves become black market kingpins, the compulsively violent cause more friendly than enemy casualties, and those already prone to objectify others are a gold mine for enemy propaganda.
Here is stuff that will keep you out of the US Army though other branch requirements are similar (Marine Corps as I recall was a bit looser on weight and Juvenile records as they count on training and discipline to correct more issues). The comments section is a treasure trove of information - notice here how people asking questions don't seem to get that a "small" problem in sheltered civilian life can and probably will flare up like a roman candle under the stress of getting shot at while living close to nature in an exotic foreign land.
@noobermenschen:
Do you think you get your money's worth with those expedition forces though?
Do you consider American infantry at the moment 'good infantry'?
And if so, how is their performance against Taliban and Iraqi insurgents explainable?
Do you think you get your money's worth with those expedition forces though?
Do you consider American infantry at the moment 'good infantry'?
And if so, how is their performance against Taliban and Iraqi insurgents explainable?
- Status