Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI

[Garimeth]

The Marines have their own air assets, which the Army doesn't, and Marine pilots train more for close air support (because ground combat is what Marines do) than Air Force pilots who want to dogfight.

The F-35 got the official endorsement of the Corps when Amos was Commandant though, he's also the first and only aviator to make Commandant.

The f-35 is a colossal waste of money, but let's be honest too, that money would be better spent on UAVs and operators - not other planes. The decade is not far off where manned aircraft will be a thing of the past or a hobby.

[Storm Bringer]

The F-35 got the official endorsement of the Corps when Amos was Commandant though, he's also the first and only aviator to make Commandant.

The f-35 is a colossal waste of money, but let's be honest too, that money would be better spent on UAVs and operators - not other planes. The decade is not far off where manned aircraft will be a thing of the past or a hobby.

I'd argue that given most UAVs reliance on satellite control, they may prove to not be as useful against a high tech enemy with the ability and will to jam and/or knock out the relay sats.

[Vinyadan]

I'd argue that given most UAVs reliance on satellite control, they may prove to not be as useful against a high tech enemy with the ability and will to jam and/or knock out the relay sats.

To this one may add that there are at least 2 countries which can put satellites out of commission, but we don't know if anyone has developed any countermeasure to this.

[Max_Killjoy]

If we get to the point when stealth is common-place and communications are easily knocked out... we might be back to manned aircraft engaged in visual-range dogfights with guns and short-range heat-seekers.

That would be ironic.

And really, people have been calling the manned fighter "soon to be obsolete" since at least the mid 1950s if not sooner, and yet here we are in 2016 and the pilot in the cockpit is still necessary for most missions.

[BayardSPSR]

If we get to the point when stealth is common-place and communications are easily knocked out... we might be back to manned aircraft engaged in visual-range dogfights with guns and short-range heat-seekers.

Or lasers. It would be hilarious if, against all expectations, late 21st century air combat strongly resembled the dogfights in Star Wars.

[Carl]

And really, people have been calling the manned fighter "soon to be obsolete" since at least the mid 1950s if not sooner, and yet here we are in 2016 and the pilot in the cockpit is still necessary for most missions.

They've been calling the end of manned aircraft for a long time, but the reasons are very different these days. For a long time it was that missile could allways shoot down aircraft. And there's some truth to this. The navies of the world have generally had the tools since the advent of guided missiles to handle any air threat quite well bearing in mind the constraints of the era, (this is why the UK had such issues in the falklands, most of their ships were designed and equipped from an era when the threat to design against was high level high speed aircraft, not low level attacks and sea skimming missiles, stealth may become the new version of this). However this technology has rarely transitioned well if at all to land based applications, but thats beginning to change.

More importantly the claims of the end of manned aircraft now are based on the idea of an actual viable replacement able to fulfill all of the same roles. Drones aren't quite there for a lot of applications IMO, but they're getting much closer and many roles can be taken over by them with the properly designed drones. That said whilst the technology is there to build adequately capable drones, the actual design and construction work is still largely not-done.

[Max_Killjoy]

They've been calling the end of manned aircraft for a long time, but the reasons are very different these days. For a long time it was that missile could allways shoot down aircraft. And there's some truth to this. The navies of the world have generally had the tools since the advent of guided missiles to handle any air threat quite well bearing in mind the constraints of the era, (this is why the UK had such issues in the falklands, most of their ships were designed and equipped from an era when the threat to design against was high level high speed aircraft, not low level attacks and sea skimming missiles, stealth may become the new version of this). However this technology has rarely transitioned well if at all to land based applications, but thats beginning to change.

More importantly the claims of the end of manned aircraft now are based on the idea of an actual viable replacement able to fulfill all of the same roles. Drones aren't quite there for a lot of applications IMO, but they're getting much closer and many roles can be taken over by them with the properly designed drones. That said whilst the technology is there to build adequately capable drones, the actual design and construction work is still largely not-done.

It's not that I think it can't happen, it's just that the "death of the fighter" people have been so wrong so often for so long that it's at the "I'll believe it when it actually, fully, really, truly happens" stage.

[BayardSPSR]

More importantly the claims of the end of manned aircraft now are based on the idea of an actual viable replacement able to fulfill all of the same roles. Drones aren't quite there for a lot of applications IMO, but they're getting much closer and many roles can be taken over by them with the properly designed drones. That said whilst the technology is there to build adequately capable drones, the actual design and construction work is still largely not-done.

UAVs do have a unique vulnerability when it comes to EW, though; even the most advanced remotely-piloted vehicle would only need its connection with its pilot to be cut for it to be disabled. This might not be the case for autonomous vehicles, but that's a huge can of worms when it comes to targeting...

[warty goblin]

UAVs do have a unique vulnerability when it comes to EW, though; even the most advanced remotely-piloted vehicle would only need its connection with its pilot to be cut for it to be disabled. This might not be the case for autonomous vehicles, but that's a huge can of worms when it comes to targeting...

For a bomber or something like that I can certainly see why people would worry about autonomous drones, but I can't figure there'd be so much in the way of worries about civilian casualties for an air superiority autonomous drone. I mean there just aren't that many things that look like fighter jets that aren't fighter jets.

[BayardSPSR]

For a bomber or something like that I can certainly see why people would worry about autonomous drones, but I can't figure there'd be so much in the way of worries about civilian casualties for an air superiority autonomous drone. I mean there just aren't that many things that look like fighter jets that aren't fighter jets.

AWACS and transport and refueling aircraft, on the other hand...

[Max_Killjoy]

For a bomber or something like that I can certainly see why people would worry about autonomous drones, but I can't figure there'd be so much in the way of worries about civilian casualties for an air superiority autonomous drone. I mean there just aren't that many things that look like fighter jets that aren't fighter jets.

Civilian airliners can look a lot like enemy transports or bombers, however...

E: that's what I get for responding without refreshing the page

[Carl]

UAVs do have a unique vulnerability when it comes to EW, though; even the most advanced remotely-piloted vehicle would only need its connection with its pilot to be cut for it to be disabled. This might not be the case for autonomous vehicles, but that's a huge can of worms when it comes to targeting...

The same is true of frankly a whole bunch of military items, mid air-refueling without pre-planned meetups and especially AWAC's to pick two important examples completely breaks down without functional hard to jam comms. It';s just that no one's putting any thought into putting decent quality comms gear on drones atm.

And if we ever get LIDAR working, well you ain't jamming the comms on any drone you can draw LoS on anymore, none of the methods for interfering with ti ae very practical for large area coverage.


That said the real issue is that right now no one seems to be recognising there are roles, (AWAC and mid-air refuelling), where a semi-autonomous drone works fine and a few, (several forms of ground attack where the ordnance is itself autonomous in guidance, or any delivery of ordnance that targets specific map/GPS coordinates), were completely autonomous work just fine as well. And there's a lot more where a drone can function semi-autonomously. Whilst replacing the A-10 with a drone isn't really a benefit, (that honking great gun is a bigger factor in several design factors that removing a pilot normally eases), for CAS work such drones are perfect, existing CAS as i understand it allready relies on the ground units communicating targets to the aircraft overhead so communicating targeting info to a drone whilst perhaps requiring some new hardware isn't out of line with what allready has to be done. Long range missile fire in the air-defence role is also somthing they can do, flying around and handling a missile engagement is something a computer can do just fine, all you need a human in the loop with is somwhere between the AWAC's drone and the missile carrying drone to parse the data and call engage/leave then forward that to the missile packing drones.

Where humans really come into their own in direct control is in certain types of CAS situation where the pilot is having to rapidly find and engage targets on his own initiative without the benefit of taking time to look over a lot of remote data when there's a lot of friendly and/or neutral targets closely mixed in amongst or alongside enemy targets. Or in dogfighting. Basically anywhere where complex judgement calls or fast reactions or both are a requirement over looking at and properly processing data and carrying out basic pre-planned responses to the results.

[Gnoman]

Absent a transponder, the only difference between a fighter plane and an airliner, as far as a radar is concerned, is the size of the return. That's far too small a data point to make shoot-no-shoot decisions on - a trained pilot can figure out the difference by flight pattern and behavior, but this is far beyond any system that could be built into a single aircraft, and relying on a weapon system that requires external control is a recipe for defeat - there are dozens of ways to cut a control link, and even if you manage to come up with a way around that, you're still guaranteeing that taking out a single base or control center guarantees defeat - a single commando strike or Six-Day-War type misdirection and you lose the ability to fight - even if your enemy throws away three quarters of their air force, that is an acceptable price to pay for taking out your entire force.

It is hardly a new concept. Not so many years ago the futurists were proclaiming that "The infantry anti-tank missile makes tanks obsolete" or "the armored attack helicopter will dominate the battlefield of the future" - both of which were based primarily on peacetime theorycrafting and low-intensity battlefields, and both were proved utterly wrong in 21st century combat. The current war in the Ukraine has proved that first-line tanks are virtually invulnerable to ATGMs, and attack helicopters have proven scarily easy to take out in full-scale combat.

[fusilier]

Ah, yes, that would make more sense, weird stuff as a remedy was pretty common, including possible human sacrifice in Hungary of 16th century. From reading the article, I'm pretty sure that's what it was and some incautious editing or rampant extrapolation led to them claiming that people drank it regularly. One other thing we should note is that the article's main academical person, Dr Joan Fitzpatrick, is a lecturer of English, not a historian per se.

That article really doesn't go into any detail, other than to quote a sentence that claimed it was good for consumption. It would be nice if it had linked to a more detailed article.

[Carl]

and relying on a weapon system that requires external control is a recipe for defeat - there are dozens of ways to cut a control link,

And yet weapons which rely on datalinks for mid course guidance are the norm for BVR capable weapons across all theatres and comms connections are vital to the functionality of a whole host of other military items. I'll buy that many types of comms are easily jammed, i'll buy that no systems perfect. But going on about how vulnerable drone comms are when the vast majority of military hardware and doctrine across the world flat out cannot function without working comms in any meaningful way either strikes me as kind of stupid, because it's not restricted to drones.

and even if you manage to come up with a way around that, you're still guaranteeing that taking out a single base or control center guarantees defeat - a single commando strike or Six-Day-War type misdirection and you lose the ability to fight - even if your enemy throws away three quarters of their air force, that is an acceptable price to pay for taking out your entire force.

Right because everybody uses a single airbase for their entire air defence needs. Please. Just because they could concentrate all their drone control system in one place dosen;t mean they would. If simple cost efficiency could do that many european countries would maintain a single airbase. Yet they don;t. In fact very small or very poor, (and thus generally very lacking in the air force department), countries aside no one does that even if it's geographically very workable.

[Brother Oni]

But going on about how vulnerable drone comms are when the vast majority of military hardware and doctrine across the world flat out cannot function without working comms in any meaningful way either strikes me as kind of stupid, because it's not restricted to drones.

The problem is there are concerns than effectiveness and military capability in modern warfare. Autonomous drones that can identify and independently choose to engage threats opens up a whole ethical can of worms, mainly because of the liability issue of false positive IDs and their threat to civilian populations.

Landmines for example, are a very low tech version of an automated device that independently identifies and engages targets. Imagine what it would be like if mine fields could move around secretly and covertly according to operational need - very effective militarily, but the political fallout would make it untenable.
Things like CIWS and similar point defence systems do the same but there's always a human operator who makes that initial decision to engage.

[Carl]

@Oni: how did you go from comms to fully autonomous drones with nothing in between. Sorry your not making sense. What you said had nothing to do with what i said in the quoted line.

Obviously fully autonomous weapon carrying drones are a terrible idea. But there's a lot of room for in between that and the current, "everything done from base over constant datalink" setup. Remember most guided weapons are autonomous once launched and don't require much or any input until at the earliest just before launch.

As an example, (and this is loosely based on how i'm told brimstone missiles where was employed over libya). You could have your drone programed on the launch rail/ramp/runway/whatever to launch and then fly to a specific location using some basic parameters for threat avoidance and course, speed and altitude considerations, only contacting base again before reaching the target area if the threat warning system detects unusual circumstances. Once it reaches the assigned target area, (which could be updated in flight if needed with a single transmission), it takes sensor images of the selected target zone and once it has them all, transmits back to base. The operator takes a look at and asseses the images and based on this gives a go no go order possibly amending the targeting area. The drone then salvo's off its brimstones which go find the targets in their selected areas on their own, breaks off and fly's itself back to base with no further input from the operator.

There's no danger of such a drone shooting up civilians, but it doesn't have the honking great issue of needed constant input from the operator.

[Brother Oni]

@Oni: how did you go from comms to fully autonomous drones with nothing in between. Sorry your not making sense. What you said had nothing to do with what i said in the quoted line.

Obviously fully autonomous weapon carrying drones are a terrible idea. But there's a lot of room for in between that and the current, "everything done from base over constant datalink" setup. Remember most guided weapons are autonomous once launched and don't require much or any input until at the earliest just before launch.

As an example, (and this is loosely based on how i'm told brimstone missiles where was employed over libya). You could have your drone programed on the launch rail/ramp/runway/whatever to launch and then fly to a specific location using some basic parameters for threat avoidance and course, speed and altitude considerations, only contacting base again before reaching the target area if the threat warning system detects unusual circumstances. Once it reaches the assigned target area, (which could be updated in flight if needed with a single transmission), it takes sensor images of the selected target zone and once it has them all, transmits back to base. The operator takes a look at and asseses the images and based on this gives a go no go order possibly amending the targeting area. The drone then salvo's off its brimstones which go find the targets in their selected areas on their own, breaks off and fly's itself back to base with no further input from the operator.

There's no danger of such a drone shooting up civilians, but it doesn't have the honking great issue of needed constant input from the operator.

Semi or fully autonomous drones would be an answer to the EW and comms issues that's currently being debated. I agree that there's a lot of operational space between '100% human operator' and '100% fully automated', it's just where you draw the line.

Your example of the Libya deployment also mirrors development programmes on semi-autonomous drones I've heard of in Iraq, where they'll fly to a target area, patrol it for however many hours, then return to base. The only input required is if a potential target is detected, at which point a human operator will take over and make the decision to engage or not.

Given that the drone can automatically detect potential targets, it's not a very difficult technical step to make the engage/do not engage decision automatic as well and this is the issue I'm addressing.

There is absolutely an issue of a drone shooting up civilians by accident given that even with the current system of a human operating piloting the drone all the time, mistakes have been made (for example this wedding convoy attack). Deferring the threat assessment to an image recognition algorithm will be incredibly difficult to get right* and when a false positive is potentially a war crime, it'll make the political will to deploy such weapons very difficult.

As for things like smart munitions and guided missiles, there is indeed the same issue, but the decision to launch is more easily justifiable as they'll hit a single specific target rather than threaten an entire area.


*XKCD has a comment on this:

Spoiler: XKCD Tasks

Show

[Carl]

Oh i agree fully autonomous is a baaaad idea for weapons applications a couple of very specific exceptions aside, (you could use a low altitude iron bomb dropping drone attacking fixed GPS/Map coordinates as a reusable cruise missile alternative for example and that would be no more problematic than a cruise missile as a fully autonomous after launch setup), i think even most manned air sorties require a go no go authorisation at some point unless they been given total free fire authority prior to takeoff, (feel free to correct that if it's wrong).

My point with the autonomous weaponry as well is that there are some missiles, (of which brimstone is one and has i've been told been used i this fashion in limited numbers over libya), which can be fired into a general target area with no target selected and no confirmation of a target with orders to seek and destroy on their own guidance system. And apparently somthing about how they setup targeting priorities allows them to be programed prior to launch so that very large numbers can be fired into the same area and they won't attack the same target twice. Whilst using them in such fashion is unlikely outside of specific circumstances and would likely require more missiles than have ever been produced so far it's possible with enough launch platforms to blanket hundreds of square miles with thousands of missiles without ever confirming or refuting the presence of enemy assets in the target area and without a human ever taking a look at what's being hit till recon afterwards. The fact that the capability was specified and built in clearly represents a belief it will have sufficient viable applications in some form of conflict to justify building it in.

Which i think represents the difference between a large scale hard conflict and a large scale soft conflict. Going after a conventional military force spread across a country is a very different thing from protecting a country from an insurgency, and drones definitely have less flexibility there.

[Vitruviansquid]

So a "doppelsoldner" is a landsknecht who received double pay for fighting in the front rank of a pike formation.

Besides the landsknechts, were there other military forces who offered material incentives for soldiers who did more dangerous duties?

[Garimeth]

UAVs do have a unique vulnerability when it comes to EW, though; even the most advanced remotely-piloted vehicle would only need its connection with its pilot to be cut for it to be disabled. This might not be the case for autonomous vehicles, but that's a huge can of worms when it comes to targeting...

I think the solution to this is reducing the distance to the UAV. You make one manned aircraft that has vtol capability, make the signal encrypted, and make it be a "short range" communication that doesn't have to utilize satellites. Also as mentioned by some others we already have drones that are mostly autonomous, they basically leave with their orders and transfer control to an operator for the kill/no kill decision. A carrier or transport can store/hold/equip far more UAVs than piloted aircraft, and the training takes less time and costs less money. I won't say that there will be NO manned aircraft, I think CASEVAC and SAR will be manned at the very least, though in the case of SAR, I think it would best be supplemented with many UAVs helping canvass a search area.

Hell, for that matter. If I were a squad leader I'd love to have a little helo style UAV that I could either have fly an automated circuit around a village or something for MOUT and have a little like wristwatch or screen that displayed what it saw, could warn us of enemy activity or attempts to flank the squad. Or imagine if I could have my forward observer or overwatch guy have that and then radio it in. I know this is a change of topic from my f-35 argument, but there is a lot of untapped or only partially tapped potential for partially autonomous or automated UAVs.

FWIW I think that we will see something similar for conventional ground combat in the future, not replacing the infantryman - but certainly supplementing him. Not before I retire from the military, and possible not even in my lifetime, but I think it will happen.

[MrZJunior]

So a "doppelsoldner" is a landsknecht who received double pay for fighting in the front rank of a pike formation.

Besides the landsknechts, were there other military forces who offered material incentives for soldiers who did more dangerous duties?

It's not quite the same thing but the forlorn hope, soldiers who were first in line to assault a breach in the walls of a fortress, would sometimes be given a whole bunch of brandy and other booze to psyche them up and lessen the effects of fear.

[Vinyadan]

I think it worked the opposite for Swiss mercenaries: since the officers gained more, their men pretty much forced them to fight in the front.

[Max_Killjoy]

Hell, for that matter. If I were a squad leader I'd love to have a little helo style UAV that I could either have fly an automated circuit around a village or something for MOUT and have a little like wristwatch or screen that displayed what it saw, could warn us of enemy activity or attempts to flank the squad. Or imagine if I could have my forward observer or overwatch guy have that and then radio it in. I know this is a change of topic from my f-35 argument, but there is a lot of untapped or only partially tapped potential for partially autonomous or automated UAVs.

That's actually an area of focus on R&D for UAVs -- small, agile, long-endurance drones that will patrol defined area without constant supervision, send video and other data to the operating squad, and have a way to set "tell me if someone crosses this area" sorts of alerts.

[Martin Greywolf]

So a "doppelsoldner" is a landsknecht who received double pay for fighting in the front rank of a pike formation.

Besides the landsknechts, were there other military forces who offered material incentives for soldiers who did more dangerous duties?

Well, yes, broadly speaking.

Forlorn hope units, the ones that were the first to storm a besieged fortifications, would often be made up of prisoners or criminals, with the promise of them going free if they lived. As far as I can tell, this promise was mostly kept.

Often, when the situation called for it, there was some incentive announced - bucket of gold for the head of the enemy commander, or, which was pretty common, money to the first soldier over the walls - this was declared at the Ottoman siege of Vienna. Another example is during First Crusade, where one of the leaders promised to pay folks for every rock they threw into a ditch near the walls to make way for a siege tower.

Lastly, even Doppelsoldners weren't quuuite paid for the dangerous job per se. Thing is, when you showed up to a levy or to a mercenary company, you were expected to provide your own equipment, and were given pay based on that - show up with a spear and a shield, and you get little, sow up with heavy armor and halberd, and you get a lot more. This means that you were paid according to what class of soldier you were - this price was dictated by how many soldiers like that were around and how much you needed them. If one of your soldier classes gets depleted more than the other and has fewer volunteers, well, you can increase pay to stop that from happening.

This was, however, not unique to Doppelsoldners - every time a kingdom needed a particular type of soldier, their pay increased, and kingdom needed a particular type of soldier (in most cases) because they get killed faster than they could replace them. An example here can be several military reforms in Hungary, where heavy infantry became more desirable, nobles and free cities of the realm had to supply more of them, and their pay suddenly became higher as a result of increased demand.

[Vitruviansquid]

You know, I always wondered about those rewards for killing the enemy commander or being the first over the walls.

Assuming he doesn't die, did the first guy over the walls actually end up getting the gold? Because it seems like there would be a lot of guys going over the wall at once if an attack on the walls is successful. It might be difficult to tell who was first, especially if a bunch of guys who were all more like among the firsts made it over the walls at about the same time. If the army had uniforms, I might not even be able to tell who it was from a distance. If it's about killing the enemy commander, what if the enemy commander had a bunch of body guards and you and your mates have to fight the enemy commander as a gang because he has a gang? What if you stabbed him in the chest with your spear and then I chopped his head with a sword right after? Did we split the gold? I mean, you'd claim it was you because a bucket of gold is at stake, and I'd claim it was me, right?

[gkathellar]

Or lasers. It would be hilarious if, against all expectations, late 21st century air combat strongly resembled the dogfights in Star Wars.

Well, since lasers are functionally instantaneous and invisible barring significant interference, lasers would actually have the opposite effect.

[Brother Oni]

Hell, for that matter. If I were a squad leader I'd love to have a little helo style UAV that I could either have fly an automated circuit around a village or something for MOUT and have a little like wristwatch or screen that displayed what it saw, could warn us of enemy activity or attempts to flank the squad.

While looking up the meaning of MOUT (Military Operations in Urban Terrain), I discovered it's been largely replaced by the term UO (Urban Operations). I also discovered that the British equivalent is OBUA (Operations in Built-Up Areas) or FIBUA (Fighting In Built-Up Areas).
The British being British have also the informal terms FISH (Fighting In Someone's House) and FISH and CHIPS (Fighting In Someone's House and Causing Havoc In People's Streets).

It's not quite the same thing but the forlorn hope, soldiers who were first in line to assault a breach in the walls of a fortress, would sometimes be given a whole bunch of brandy and other booze to psyche them up and lessen the effects of fear.

Further to Martin Greywolf's post, there was often intense competition to be part of the forlorn hope since survival often guaranteed glory and promotion, something extremely coveted by officers who didn't have a patron or were otherwise too poor to buy promotion.
There's a number of mentions of this in accounts from the Peninsular War (mostly because of the British Army system at the time) and is also a plot point in the book Sharpe’s Company.

Modern day soldiers can qualify for additional pay for particularly dangerous or objectionable jobs; for example, the US Army has Hazardous Duty Incentive Pay and the British Army has Unpleasant Work Allowance.
I'm sure the serving and former-serving here can fill in the actual details.

[Storm Bringer]

You know, I always wondered about those rewards for killing the enemy commander or being the first over the walls.

Assuming he doesn't die, did the first guy over the walls actually end up getting the gold? Because it seems like there would be a lot of guys going over the wall at once if an attack on the walls is successful. It might be difficult to tell who was first, especially if a bunch of guys who were all more like among the firsts made it over the walls at about the same time. If the army had uniforms, I might not even be able to tell who it was from a distance. If it's about killing the enemy commander, what if the enemy commander had a bunch of body guards and you and your mates have to fight the enemy commander as a gang because he has a gang? What if you stabbed him in the chest with your spear and then I chopped his head with a sword right after? Did we split the gold? I mean, you'd claim it was you because a bucket of gold is at stake, and I'd claim it was me, right?

my guess is that it came down to witness reports, specifically officers witness reports. theirs quite a few things done in war that would get a man promoted or decorated if only a officer was present, but don't because none was their to record it.

However, I know of at least one case where during a roman storming of a city, where their were two competing claims between the roman army and the navy. In the end, as both men had managed to be "first" over the walls on opposite sides of the town, they both got rewarded.

While looking up the meaning of MOUT (Military Operations in Urban Terrain), I discovered it's been largely replaced by the term UO (Urban Operations). I also discovered that the British equivalent is OBUA (Operations in Built-Up Areas) or FIBUA (Fighting In Built-Up Areas).
The British being British have also the informal terms FISH (Fighting In Someone's House) and FISH and CHIPS (Fighting In Someone's House and Causing Havoc In People's Streets).

I knew it as Causing Havoc In Public Spaces, but yhea, that. My understanding is that it partly came about as a result of our northern Ireland experience. The traditional US conception of urban warfare was rooted in the cold war idea that the population would have fled the city before or early in the fighting, whereas our conception and experience leaned towards the locals staying local.

[snowblizz]

So a "doppelsoldner" is a landsknecht who received double pay for fighting in the front rank of a pike formation.

Besides the landsknechts, were there other military forces who offered material incentives for soldiers who did more dangerous duties?

Yes. A US Paratrooper in WW2 got 50 dollars more in pay (monthly I think) 'cause parashuting is dangerous, to incentivice volounteering IIRC.

Generally speaking it's quite common to pay more for dangerous duty, because sometimes it's the only way to get the job done.