I was thinking of ways to reincorporate the motorbike into the military. A little odd that I am thinking of how to keep incorporating obsolete technology, but this is who I am.
A motorcycle usually fits these specifications
- The two wheels give it more forward momentum than a car (faster)
- The motorcycle is more maneuverable than a car
- The motorcycle is smaller than a car
- The motorcycle usually only holds a maximum of two passengers
- Equipped SMG guns are the only armament compatible with the motorcycle, unless the motorcycle has a sidecar in which you can outfit a light machine gun.
The best testament to military motorcycle use occurred in WW2. The Nazis used the BMW R75 for several purposes. As a patrol vehicle, as a forward recon vehicle, and as a fast attack vehicle. The US commisioned Harley Davidson to make the WLA for military purposes in WW2, and sent them to the Allies as apart of the Land-Lease program. They were used primarily as messenger vehicles, and were rarely anywhere close to combat.
Despite motorcycles in battlefield situations being obsolete for so long, I still think the Nazis were on to something regarding their proper use. WW2 was when recon vehicles were being manufactured, because the helicopter had not yet been developed, and the recon plane was increasingly useless due to AA technology and the fact that war was mobile and not in deadlock like in WW1, so a reconplane wouldn't have time to make several passes.
When the Nazis would launch an offensive, they would usually send in their motorbikes first. The motorbikes are cheap, expendable, and fast enough to get away when under fire. The motorbikes would pick up on the locations of enemy defenses, which would give a commanding officer the information he needs to properly launch his attack. If they lost a motorbike, it wasn't a big deal, because officers would much rather lose a bike than a formation of tanks to enemy fire.
Anyways, almost every nation produces or licenses recon vehicles, which are designed to perform the same functions as the early Nazi R75. These recon vehicles usually have extremely light armor, and a moderate sized gun under 60mm for self defense. Some of these recon vehicles are really good, and I wouldn't want to replace them with motorcycles, but I still think in a lot of circumstances the motorcycle is better. Newer motorcycle models would be faster than any recon vehicle we could make today, and they are less bulky giving them more maneuverability. They wouldn't have anything more than a 6mm gun to defend themselves, but the whole point of a recon vehicle in the first place is that it isn't supposed to engage in fighting.
I still think there is a lot to be said about producing a line of fast motorcycles for forward scouting.
So you envision motorcycle units to be the modern equivalent of scout cavalry or swift cavalry raids into enemy territory.
Raids? No, but the calvary scouts should be trained to use motorcycles due to their effectiveness in maneuvering. A lot of newer motorcycles actually have their tank silenced , which makes them near impossible to hear.
It is basically a mechanized forward recon unit that is faster, stealthier, and more maneuverable than anything else we put out
Okay, 4 days so I feel entitled to make quite a signifigant post on grenades
Grenades are an important that have had a history almost as long as the firearm.
The first grenades were small shells filled with gunpowder, which had a fuse which had to be manually lit. Their original use was to destroy large lines of infantry with one quick strike. The drawback was that a successful grenade attack required a line of grenadiers to get close enough to the enemy and survive long enough to light and lob their grenades upon the enemy formation. Other use of early grenades were as defensive or offensive boarding weapons in naval combat. Upon boarding, sailors would offensively or defensively throw grenades upon the enemies ship.
During the mid to late 1800's, the grenade became obsolete for the most part. The long range and rapid firing of rifles and the invention of machine guns made it impossible for grenadiers to close in on infantry, and if they did, they would likely be cut down before they had a change to light their fuses, lob their grenades, and wait for them to go off. The only innovations in grenades was the fire grenade, which was the first fire extinguisher. It was used to fight fires in cities.
WW1 and the rise of trench warfare reignited the need for grenades. France and Germany both relied heavily on human wave attacks to capture trenches from the enemy. Machine guns and multi shot quick firing rifles resulted in heavy casualties for the attacker. With the rise of trench warfare also came the rise of military innovation. Recon planes, the mortar, and chemical weapons were some of the innovations that allowed attackers to even the odds. Trench warfare also brought about the return of the grenade. Attacking infantry formations would have a number of troops armed with grenades, where upon charging a trench, they could throw in a grenade blowing up defenders before the hand to hand fighting could begin. Another innovation was the smoke grenade, which saw limited use in WW1, but later rose to prominence in WW2. Its use could cover attackers or in some instances blind defenders, in order to close the gap in the dead zone, or allow a retreat with minimal casualties. Grenades also began to have large grips, which enhanced a soldiers throwing range. Along with the new grips, grenades had pins, which automatically ignited the fuse upon release of the pin
WW2 is where grenades saw their most widespread use. This is also the time when the grenade received the most innovations and technological advances. Four types of grenades were used in prominence during WW2. The fragmentation grenade, the incendiary grenade, the anti-tank grenade, and the rifle grenade.
The fragmentation grenade, like earlier grenades, released shrapnel fragments upon release of its pin. While new doctrines and innovations had obsoleted trench warfare stalemates, the use of trenches were still used in just about every major battle, because infantry exposed out in the open would be easily slaughtered by mobile machine gun units, and also tanks which were now widespread equipped with a machinegun port. They also continued to give a huge defensive advantage against attacking infantry. As suspected, the fragmentation grenade had continued use in attacking trenches, but its real use was in urban combat. Attacking infantry entering a city would be slaughtered by defenders, holed up in every building often using barricades and the narrow streets to their advantage to disorganize attackers and slaughter the enemy. The fragmentation grenade allowed for attacking infantry to lob grenades into buildings and houses, which dislodged defenders from the relative safety of four walls and a roof. When attacking towns and villages with infantry, often more defenders were killed by grenades than by firearms.
The incendiary grenade was used for the same reasons as the fragmentation grenade, often with less effectiveness. It could start fires and smoke defenders out of urban defenses, and were often cheaper and quicker to produce than a shrapnel fragmentation grenade with a jacket. One of the major incendiary grenades in WW2 was the molotov cocktail, also known as the petrol bomb. It was easy to produce, and could be made out of common available objects found within the villages the Soviet army passed through.
The third grenade was the Anti-Tank grenade. It was a major weapons that first saw major use during the Battle of Kursk in 1943. Infantry were defenseless against tanks incoming on their trenches, and the shrapnel from their fragmentation grenades would bounce off a tanks armor. Anti-tank grenades were husks of large concentrated explosives. When a tank approached a trench, defending infantry could throw a line of AT grenades as a last resort in order to prevent a breach. The advancement of tank armor and the obsoletetion of trench warfare has rendered AT grenades obsolete as well. There is still speculation that they can be used effectively in urban areas against tanks, but given that tank commanders have a 100 other reasons to avoid urban areas, the production of AT grenades will likely remain obsolete.
The fourth grenade innovation, and my favorite of all, was the rifle grenade. It was a grenade which could attach to the barrel of a fitted or compatible rifle. It was the pre-resuiquite to the grenade launcher and grenade launcher attachment. Rifle grenades from WW2 were anywhere from smoke, fragmentation, to anti-tank.
Besides rifle grenades and anti-tank grenades going obsolete during the cold war, the general usage of grenades has stayed the same since them, besides the invention of the stun grenade and concussion grenade, which are primarily used for tactical actions by the special forces, and rarely used for practical military purposes.
My proposal for grenade reform
The fragmentation grenade is a great weapon for urban combat, used primarily for clearing buildings and facilities. Modern day fragmentation grenades are quite heavy though, which is a result of the increase in destructive capabilities. During WW2, a soldier would have about 2 or 3 fragmentation grenades, 1 of which was usually a defensive fragmentation grenade. Now an infantry soldier has generally about 1 grenade on hand, many infantry without a grenade at all. The reason infantry in WW2 had so many fragmentation grenades was because when entering an urban combat zone, there were usually dozens of occupied buildings. If 24 infantry attack a dense village center with a dozen infantry guarding it, they would want plenty of grenades, because that way if half of them die on the approach and another six die in the breach, you would still be reassured that the remaining infantry would have enough armaments to clear the town without having to surrender.
The concept remains the same. That is why I would propose lowering the size and explosive ordinance of today's grenades, allowing our military to ramp up production and allow soldiers to carry more than one grenade on hand. Doctrines haven't changed, the grenade is still the best weapon for clearing out defending infantry in urban warfare situations. One grenade per soldier wont cut it.
The second proposal is regarding anti-tank grenades and rifle grenades. Both of these weapons were rendered obsolete as times moved on. Unlike many people though, I still believe there is a place for the anti-tank grenade and the rifle grenade in the military.
This is a modern grenade launcher, grenade launcher attachment, and grenade launcher attachment.
The grenade launcher is able to propel small explosive rounds over a long distance. The use of rifle grenades would be superior for several reasons.
1.The longer barrel of the gun allows for a rifle grenade to be propelled over a longer distance than a grenade launcher round
2.The rifle grenade doesn't need an additional under-barrel attachment, freeing up the rifle for additional modifications
3 The rifle grenade is functional with any infantryman who has a compatible rifle
4. Since the size of the grenade shell isn't constricted to the size of a grenade launcher barrel, rifle grenades can be produced to deliver bigger payloads. For example, the MK II rifle grenade used by the US in WW2 could deliver a round over a longer distance while producing a larger explosion than a modern .5 grenade launcher round the US military uses today.
Only a couple of service rifles still have rifle grenades which are compatible with them, but most guns have the ability to host rifle grenades were they to be designed to the rifles specifications. The anti-tank grenade also has a place in the military if the rifle grenade were to become mainstream again. Anti-tank grenades, even at the time of their use, were only effective individually against lightly armored vehicles and tanks. In order to take down heavy tanks, a bunch of soldiers would have to throw their grenades at the targeted tank.
Tank armor is much more advanced today, but even the heaviest of tanks can still be disabled were they to be lobbed by a dozen AT grenades. Were AT rifle grenades to be produced though, we take care of the two problems that led to AT grenades becoming obsolete in the first place. We would now allow a squad of infantry to fire en masse on an armored target over a longer distance. Individually an AT rifle grenade could disable a modern light tank, or destroy it with another fire round, while concentrated fire from a squad would instantly disable anything around T-72 armor specifications. Anything above T-80 armor would still be resistant to AT rifle grenades, and the most you could expect from concentrated fire would be disabling the tank, but their production would still provide a nice fallout weapon for infantry to use. Especially since the only alternative are AT rifles and AT launchers, and those are both heavy need to be carried alongside a regular service rifle with its own ammunition.
Perhaps we should also work on developing more powerful non-nuclear explosives to fill the next generation of grenades with?
I had an idea:
What if, as the nation that currently shoulders about 70% of NATO's defense spending, the U.S. were to declare that starting in a certain year all NATO members which didn't spend at least 1.5% of their GDPs on defense would be kicked out of the alliance?
I mean, there's been calls for 2% spending by each member, but that's a little too much for Europe to handle. Less than 1.5%, however is basically mooching off the protection provided by the Alliance without giving squat in return.
Perhaps we should also work on developing more powerful non-nuclear explosives to fill the next generation of grenades with?
I wouldn't prioritize it though. The main goal is making them lighter and smaller so assault squads can carry more.
Yeah, but literally zero European NATO nations actually live up to this proposed standard. 1.5% is more realistic, in my opinion, and even this will probably drive a few countries out of NATO.
Makes sense. I think we should focus on the actual number though instead of the GDP percentage. Many militaries are very effective within their current budgets.
The US is a good example of a defective and dysfunctional military engaged in overspending, so while we may pay a lot more than other nations on our defense, in the event of an actual war, we would contribute relatively the same land forces wise.
Definitely the M16A4, but also the M4 variants. The pentagon even confirmed the superiority of the Beretta ARX 160, and came close to adopting it. The problem is that we don't like to license guns from other countries.
Here is the Bushmaster Adaptive Combat Rifle, which is close in design to the ARX 160. It is US manafactured.
What a shame. Italy is part of NATO...we should be copying their gun and all research related to it in order to help modernize our infantry force and help our military rifle industry catch up with the 21st century.
We would have to buy licensing rights though. It isn't that there gun is more advanced than our own. It is just better.
There isn't a whole lot of technology that goes into service rifles. Probably the most tech savvy thing was the introduction of Polymers.
Theres obviously a new cold war. American won't rest until Russia is back to the size it was in the 9th century AD.
Both sides have indoctrinated their populace to believe that acts of aggression are policies of containment.
People don't see how Cold War esque the War on Terror has been.
"By golly, we must stop the spread of *insert ideology* or we will all die"
True, but the way I see it, the West started this entire conflict in Ukraine by supporting the illegal coup, supporting the 'anti-terrorist' operation against civilians, and most likely funding the entire coup to begin with. During a CNN interview Obama admitted that the United States
had brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine.
Also, Russia's annexation of Crimea was clearly illegal however considering what was happening in Ukraine during this time was the correct move.
Hmm, okay. We have conflicting information, but I wouldn't expect anything clear cut with state driven media agencies delivering all our information.