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

[Vinyadan]

I guess this explains why in the Italian memory of WWI Italian generals share the role of the enemy with the Austrians.

[snowblizz]

I guess this explains why in the Italian memory of WWI Italian generals share the role of the enemy with the Austrians.

There is *plenty* of more reasons. Italian generals probably caused more unnecessary deaths then the enemy :P. At least the enemy was the suppsoed enemy.
Watching the Great War youtube channel (following the WW1 week by week) and generals idiocy was widespread but the Italian's bosses are almost on a level of their own.

[fusilier]

There is *plenty* of more reasons. Italian generals probably caused more unnecessary deaths then the enemy :P. At least the enemy was the suppsoed enemy.
Watching the Great War youtube channel (following the WW1 week by week) and generals idiocy was widespread but the Italian's bosses are almost on a level of their own.

I'm not sure if that's entirely fair -- this general was particularly bad and in the book he's replaced with a more . . . let's say . . . conventional general. I think it should also be kept in mind that this was World War 1; within that context I don't think they come off looking too bad. The Italians faced probably the worst terrain of the war, and the 1866 border with Austria had been specifically designed with Austrian defense in mind. They also lacked the industry and therefore the equipment needed (a situation that only gradually improved). This particular incident took place on the, more, mountainous northern front, which was usually a sideshow to the Isonzo front, and therefore didn't get priority for things like artillery. Although there were some amazing actions on that front too.

Italians didn't develop the large scale "infiltration tactics" that the Germans employed, and their defenses were woefully unprepared for the Caporetto offensive, but that could be said of any of the Western Allies at the time. They learned from Caporetto and had a much better defensive scheme in place for the Battle of the Solstice the next year. At the tactical level, the Arditi were developed and employed effectively as assault troops.

That said there are some things about the Italian leadership, especially under Cadorna, that were particularly terrible. I'm thinking primarily of the random executions. He also didn't really consider other strategic options, preferring to batter his way through the Isonzo front.

As with most of history, a detailed understanding paints a much more complicated picture, and Italian military history must usually be approached with skepticism due to the still prevalent tendency of foreign (and even domestic) writers to be very dismissive of the Italian military, with few works that actually try to evaluate the sources, rather than relying upon, old, outdated, biased (sometimes bordering on racist) works. After the war the Allies, and especially the British*, wanted to reneg on the promises they made to Italy, and made various claims about how useless they were during the war -- this was easy, because those preconceptions already existed. If you want to read a counterpoint, see if you can find a book called Italy's Part In Winning The World War -- it was written in the 1930s by an American officer who served on the Italian front. He was shocked by the manner in which Italy's former allies tried to discredit their military, with claims that went directly against his experience. That work may be a bit biased in the opposite direction, but it's a rare work indeed.

The White War is a more recent work that's worth reading. Schindler's Isonzo on the other hand, which was recommended highly to me, is so biased I wanted to through it on the fire, which I avoided doing as it was a rather expensive book borrowed from the library. It's not surprising as the author's sources were almost entirely early Austrian histories about the war, which have a particular narrative that they are trying to support. There is, however, enough detail in the work, that the details often don't support the conclusions he comes to. This work is particularly troublesome, because it seems to be regarded as an authority -- things like, strangely lopsided, casualty numbers appear to come from his work. Frustratingly, he admits to making up the numbers, but never explains how he came to the numbers he reported.

A very good primer for the Italian Front is a rather old website:
http://www.worldwar1.com/itafront/

It's presented as a collection of articles -- but if you pick through them in the right order you can get a pretty good overview of the Italian front at least through Caporetto.

*Perhaps ironically, most British soldiers had a poor opinion of their generals as well.

[snowblizz]

I'm not sure if that's entirely fair --

That said there are some things about the Italian leadership, especially under Cadorna, that were particularly terrible. I'm thinking primarily of the random executions. He also didn't really consider other strategic options, preferring to batter his way through the Isonzo front.

Principally Cadorna I'm thinking of. Though few of the main generals seem to have been very good. Only the Austrian guy (who'se name somehow won't pop up) who kicked off the whole war probably did more more to ruin his country and it's efforts.

Things such as not giving the troops any leave because they'd be spreading "defeatism", constant disastrous attacks. Not following through the one time they had a chance to break through, or they did but stopped short of strategic points any fool could not plainly see.

Has nothing to do with military capabilites as such, the man was a disaster for his troops pure and simple. I don't doubt for a second Italian troops felt more symphaty for their enemies than their commanders. This was fairly common all around really as the failings in high command are numerous and on all sides.

[Vinyadan]

Cadorna also had some very unusual idea of how to motivate his troops. When they told him they couldn't get over the barbed wire defending an Austrian position, he answered that they would cross it on mattresses made of corpses (theirs).

Another cause of resentment was the fact that Italy has never been attacked since it was unified. So it was clear that the soldiers were there because someone had freely chosen for them to be there, not because a war had been forced on their country.

And the third thing I can think of right now is that Italy did not send any food or goods to its POWs, and instead described them as traitors to their families. There are letters of fathers of soldiers writing to them and calling them betrayers and telling them to shoot themselves, after they had asked to send them food.

Put all of this together, and you get a pretty dark portrayal of the ruling class.

[fusilier]

Not following through the one time they had a chance to break through, or they did but stopped short of strategic points any fool could not plainly see.

If this is referring to Cadorna (and I believe you are here), I think this came from Schindler's Isonzo -- specifically the not following through when they had a chance. He makes some pretty extreme claims about the Battle of Gorizia (6th Isonzo) and I could go into some detail about this, but basically he claimed that the Austro-Hungarians were near collapse and all the Italians had to do was order their troops forward and they would have had complete victory. He then goes on to say that their pontoon bridges had been lost during the advance and they couldn't cross the river. Which seems to say that they couldn't have advanced if they wanted to?

I think a lot of this has to do with perspectives. From the Austro-Hungarian point of view they were dangerously close to breaking. But what they didn't know is that the Italians had become strung out during their advance, and with most of the bridges blown, couldn't bring up their artillery quickly enough to support a continued advance.

On more than one occasion the Austro-Hungarian army seemed to be on the breaking point, but the Italians had used up their ammunition and reserves, and had to call off the offensive. They just didn't have the logistical capability of the Western Allies to maintain offensives as long.

[fusilier]

Cadorna also had some very unusual idea of how to motivate his troops. When they told him they couldn't get over the barbed wire defending an Austrian position, he answered that they would cross it on mattresses made of corpses (theirs).
. . .

Put all of this together, and you get a pretty dark portrayal of the ruling class.

Yeah,

Cadorna was fond of "decimations" -- he had pretty extreme ideas about "iron discipline", and would basically institute random executions if a unit ever "misbehaved". These were expected to be carried out immediately, with no sense of justice or process. Subordinate officers who didn't go along with his ideas were usually removed in one manner or another.

And the third thing I can think of right now is that Italy did not send any food or goods to its POWs, and instead described them as traitors to their families. There are letters of fathers of soldiers writing to them and calling them betrayers and telling them to shoot themselves, after they had asked to send them food.

After Cadorna was kicked out they did put together a plan to send some relief to the POWs through the Red Cross, but this was enacted slowly, and deliveries only began just as the war ended. :-/ Even when the POWs were being returned they weren't prepared for them, and kept them cooped up on trains until they could be cleared (I can't remember if it was for disease, political leanings, or both).

Another cause of resentment was the fact that Italy has never been attacked since it was unified. So it was clear that the soldiers were there because someone had freely chosen for them to be there, not because a war had been forced on their country.

Yeah, there was some anti-hapsburg feelings in the North, and certainly the irrendentists supported fighting Austria. But most of the population saw war as a kind of natural disaster -- something to be avoided if possible. Given all those conditions it's sometimes surprising how well the Italian soldier did. They never suffered mutinies like the French Army, although they were probably close to it after the 11th Battle of the Isonzo. Some historians claim that Italians rallied to the cause after the Caporetto disaster, with the Austrians now on Italian land, and with the replacement of the high command, better treatment and pay were introduced.

[Deadmeat.GW]

Same in North Africa, the Italian troops were well respected by Rommel, the officers, especially the high command not so much so...

The Ariete did massively well for example.

Some people remember the quote from Rommel that they had been decimated and lost 100 tanks and it is always taken out of context.

This was part of a request for reinforcements and the Italian high command would only replace losses at one point when they really needed extra troops to push through so Rommel exaggerated in the hope that he would get what he needed to break through and it incidentally showed that he had quite some confidence in the Italian troops since he tried to get more of them too.

Taking his quote out of the conversational and political/military context made it pretty different.

The Italian artillery corps also was extremely professional and would fight on way beyond what most people would expect from artillery units.

[Lemmy]

Would a buckler be helpful when strapped to the forearm of someone fighting with sword and dagger? I'm under impression a buckler is much too small to really help if it's strapped to someone's arm rather than held center-grip.

[eru001]

Same in North Africa, the Italian troops were well respected by Rommel, the officers, especially the high command not so much so...

The Ariete did massively well for example.

Some people remember the quote from Rommel that they had been decimated and lost 100 tanks and it is always taken out of context.

This was part of a request for reinforcements and the Italian high command would only replace losses at one point when they really needed extra troops to push through so Rommel exaggerated in the hope that he would get what he needed to break through and it incidentally showed that he had quite some confidence in the Italian troops since he tried to get more of them too.

Taking his quote out of the conversational and political/military context made it pretty different.

The Italian artillery corps also was extremely professional and would fight on way beyond what most people would expect from artillery units.

Rommel once said "The German Soldier impressed the world, the Italian Bersergliari impressed the German Soldier."

[Vinyadan]

Would a buckler be helpful when strapped to the forearm of someone fighting with sword and dagger? I'm under impression a buckler is much too small to really help if it's strapped to someone's arm rather than held center-grip.

I somehow read rapier instead of buckler. I guess it would offer you some small protection, but you would lose a few techniques. More importantly, I don't think it's possible to concentrate at the same time on dagger and buckler, if they depend on the same arm. You would probably just forget about it.

[GraaEminense]

I think it would make more sense to add a dagger if you were already fighting with a buckler than the other way around, if you see what I mean.

Spoiler: Also, Scots.

Show

[Lemmy]

I somehow read rapier instead of buckler.

Well... That's... Uh... Totally your fault. I certainly didn't make a mistake when typing and then edited my post to fix my typo. No sir... Not at all... *whistles inconspicuously*

I guess it would offer you some small protection, but you would lose a few techniques. More importantly, I don't think it's possible to concentrate at the same time on dagger and buckler, if they depend on the same arm. You would probably just forget about it.

I see. Thanks for the clarification. I ask because I've seen images of people with bucklers strapped to their forearm rather than held center-grip, and a couple of them had characters dual-wielding daggers/shortswords... In fact, IIRC, bucklers are used strapped to the forearm in D&D/PF, which doesn't seem very useful to me. From my layman's PoV, it seems a buckler wouldn't be much good without the mobility of a center-grip.

[Vinyadan]

A possible alternative: someone hinted it could be a Hungarian shield-spike thing, but it could be a duelling weapon

From here: http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Gladi...m#.WBI9zyS6-Uk (page 6, where there also is a spiked buckler)

[Vinyadan]

I found a better image.

http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Page:MS_G...art.16_55r.jpg

The text says:

Hie nach ist ain stand mit dem messer vnd auch mit dem vngrischen schilt dar aus man alle stuck mag treiben zu schimph vnd zu ernst –

"Hereafter is a stand with the knife and also with the Hungarian shield, from which it is good to use all parts for game (tournament) and for real combat."
Translation mine, given without warrant but good intention ;-)

[fusilier]

Rommel once said "The German Soldier impressed the world, the Italian Bersergliari impressed the German Soldier."

I heard a story from someone who's grandfather was a junior Italian officer on the Eastern Front in WW2, he remembered a German officer saying: "German officers, and Italian soldiers" -- implying that was the best combination.

Even in WW2 the Italian officer corps still had those aristocratic airs, that often impeded good cooperation between the officers and the men (language differences didn't help either). Even in peacetime there were insufficient funds for training (for both officers and men), so while the written regulations were good, they often failed to live up to them. Italian officers who got to observe German units in training, and witness the cooperation first hand, went away not just impressed but envious.

[eru001]

I heard a story from someone who's grandfather was a junior Italian officer on the Eastern Front in WW2, he remembered a German officer saying: "German officers, and Italian soldiers" -- implying that was the best combination.

Even in WW2 the Italian officer corps still had those aristocratic airs, that often impeded good cooperation between the officers and the men (language differences didn't help either). Even in peacetime there were insufficient funds for training (for both officers and men), so while the written regulations were good, they often failed to live up to them. Italian officers who got to observe German units in training, and witness the cooperation first hand, went away not just impressed but envious.

It is worth noting that the quote refers to Bersergliari (the Italian elite infantry) not the italian regulars. The regular troops of the italian army were a mixed bag, some units as skilled and professional as you could expect of any army and some units just barely more usefull than an equivalent number of cardboard cutouts.

Bersergliari on the other hand were the best troops in the italian army, trained in small group assault tactics as well as regular warfare, with an emphasis on aggression and mobility in the field. On top of that, they were gutsy and would willingly charge into the worst areas of the battlefield regardless of the odds against them, often managing to defy those odds. A lot of their victories read like something out of a not particularly believable hollywood movie.

[rrgg]

Would a buckler be helpful when strapped to the forearm of someone fighting with sword and dagger? I'm under impression a buckler is much too small to really help if it's strapped to someone's arm rather than held center-grip.

George Silver gave both sword and buckler as well as sword and target (the shield strapped to the arm) the advantage over sword and dagger, although he didn't say anything about holding both a dagger and a target in the off hand. When dueling with a target generally don't hold it flat towards the enemy, rather even with a round target one edge is held forward with the arm almost fully extended much like the pictures Vinyadan linked. This helps quite a bit with the defense.

Holding a dagger in the shield hand might provide some advantage in that it gives you more options. But unless you've had a ton of practice with it and have learned techniques to actually use the dagger effectively it might not help much.

[fusilier]

It is worth noting that the quote refers to Bersergliari (the Italian elite infantry) not the italian regulars. The regular troops of the italian army were a mixed bag, some units as skilled and professional as you could expect of any army and some units just barely more usefull than an equivalent number of cardboard cutouts.

Bersergliari on the other hand were the best troops in the italian army, trained in small group assault tactics as well as regular warfare, with an emphasis on aggression and mobility in the field. On top of that, they were gutsy and would willingly charge into the worst areas of the battlefield regardless of the odds against them, often managing to defy those odds. A lot of their victories read like something out of a not particularly believable hollywood movie.

The context of the quote of the officer on the Eastern Front was more general. Bersaglieri were elite infantry, whether or not they were the best in the Italian Army is probably debated by Alpini. ;-) But perhaps more importantly, the elite units received the best stuff. They were relatively well equipped with trucks and motorcycles, and got more sub-machineguns, etc., not to mention better and more complete training.

In theory, if the rest of the Italian army could have been as well equipped and trained, they probably would have done a lot better. In fact there are studies that claim when the Italian army was smaller it was more effective -- but Mussolini was always trying to make it bigger than the country could really support. The result was the army ended up spreading its resources too thin, bringing down the quality of the whole force (barring the elite units that got special attention). That attitude -- put as many people as possible in uniform -- was probably fine during WW1, but by WW2 the infantry needed to be supported by armor and trucks, and trained how to coordinate with them. As an example, the number of trucks in the Italian army was woefully inadequate when the war began and it only dropped as the war progressed, as their industry couldn't even make up for losses.

[Storm Bringer]

I'll just leave this here.

The Italian command was, for the most part, not equal to the task of carrying on war in the desert, where the requirement was lightning decision followed by immediate action. The training of the Italian infantryman fell far short of the standard required by modern warfare. … Particularly harmful was the all pervading differentiation between officer and man. While the men had to make shift without field-kitchens, the officers, or many of them, refused adamantly to forgo their several course meals. Many officers, again, considered it unnecessary to put in an appearance during battle and thus set the men an example. All in all, therefore, it was small wonder that the Italian soldier, who incidentally was extraordinarily modest in his needs, developed a feeling of inferiority which accounted for his occasional failure and moments of crisis. There was no foreseeable hope of a change for the better in any of these matters, although many of the bigger men among the Italian officers were making sincere efforts in that direction.

all i will add to this is that i have read a article on the Argentinian army in the Falklands that pretty much says exactly the same things (willing troops being led badly by distant officers)

[Kiero]

Would a buckler be helpful when strapped to the forearm of someone fighting with sword and dagger? I'm under impression a buckler is much too small to really help if it's strapped to someone's arm rather than held center-grip.

That's a Scottish Highland fighting style.

[Vinyadan]

I think I've found another example, although it's a bit different from that you asked about (the buckler isn't strapped to the arm, it is instead held like a buckler by hand, while holding a dagger with the same hand). It's recommended against two enemies at once. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...C2%BA_119r.jpg

Something similar from another manuscript:
http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/...0451&seite=244


About the Ariete in North Africa, there is a phrase from Mario Tobino I find very interesting. Tobino is a well known poet and narrative author who worked as a physician and psychiatrist, and was sent to Libya during WWII as a field doctor. He observed that, when the Ariete disembarked, the common soldiers had the feeling that they had been sent there to humiliate them, because, unlike them, they were well trained and heavily armed. So I guess that's the feeling of inferiority Rommel spoke of.
The book was translated in English here: https://www.amazon.com/Lost-Legions-.../dp/B000H3WPCQ

In the same book he described a case in which women from a harem wanted him to visit them. They weren't ill though, and he ended up realizing they just wanted to show themselves naked to someone else than their (future) husband. So he made the visit, while the house leader stood in same room with his back turned at them, invented some light illness and prescribed some useless remedies. I don't know why, but this reminds me of our age of selfies.

[MrZJunior]

Would plate armor be at all useful at close range against a pistol chambered for .25 ACP?

If not, would people who are two or three times stronger than normal be able to wear armor thick enough?

[rrgg]

Probably, according to wikipedia a .25 ACP round has an energy of only 127J, which is even less than some really powerful arrows or crossbow bolts might achieve. I suppose if there was steel-jacketed version it might penetrate relatively thin armor, although even then the stopping power probably wouldn't be that great.

[PersonMan]

So, I've got a scenario in my head that's prompting another of my what-ifs.

Modern empire is collapsing into civil war after about a decade of expensive (in money and casualties) external warfare. Nearby countries are giving some support to the factions they like, but it's very limited in scope. No large-scale imports of fuel, weapons, ammunition, etc. are happening.

What is the war going to look like? Will you see rationed use of things like air power and armored units to try and extend their lifetime* or will they be used as much as possible to try and gain a decisive advantage early on?

As the war continues, what sort of effect will the lack of air power, heavier artillery, and armored units have? I'm assuming that, during the fighting, major industrial centers will likely be severely damaged or destroyed by fighting for them or destroyed intentionally by a retreating force, so over time you'll see a degradation of equipment used.


* The country can manufacture all the weapons it uses, but in many cases is reliant on material and fuel imports to actually keep making or using them.

[MrZJunior]

So, I've got a scenario in my head that's prompting another of my what-ifs.

Modern empire is collapsing into civil war after about a decade of expensive (in money and casualties) external warfare. Nearby countries are giving some support to the factions they like, but it's very limited in scope. No large-scale imports of fuel, weapons, ammunition, etc. are happening.

What is the war going to look like? Will you see rationed use of things like air power and armored units to try and extend their lifetime* or will they be used as much as possible to try and gain a decisive advantage early on?

As the war continues, what sort of effect will the lack of air power, heavier artillery, and armored units have? I'm assuming that, during the fighting, major industrial centers will likely be severely damaged or destroyed by fighting for them or destroyed intentionally by a retreating force, so over time you'll see a degradation of equipment used.


* The country can manufacture all the weapons it uses, but in many cases is reliant on material and fuel imports to actually keep making or using them.

If they have a large agricultural sector they could use ethanol to sub in for some imported petroleum. You'd start seeing a lot of make do and scrounged together equipment like technicals and stuff like that. I expect that over time civilian vehicles would start replacing military vehicles because there would be more spare parts and mechanics available for them.

[Gnoman]

So, I've got a scenario in my head that's prompting another of my what-ifs.

Modern empire is collapsing into civil war after about a decade of expensive (in money and casualties) external warfare. Nearby countries are giving some support to the factions they like, but it's very limited in scope. No large-scale imports of fuel, weapons, ammunition, etc. are happening.

What is the war going to look like? Will you see rationed use of things like air power and armored units to try and extend their lifetime* or will they be used as much as possible to try and gain a decisive advantage early on?

As the war continues, what sort of effect will the lack of air power, heavier artillery, and armored units have? I'm assuming that, during the fighting, major industrial centers will likely be severely damaged or destroyed by fighting for them or destroyed intentionally by a retreating force, so over time you'll see a degradation of equipment used.


* The country can manufacture all the weapons it uses, but in many cases is reliant on material and fuel imports to actually keep making or using them.

Cartridge cases are relatively easy to make even with limited tools, but are easily reused. Smokeless powder and primers do not require any exotic materials or manufacturing methods, and bullets can be simply cast. The only moderaetly tricky aspect of ammunition manufacture is jacketing the rounds, which at worst would cause a reversion to simple lead projectiles and the acceptance of fouling risk, possibly reviving experiments with Williams-style cleaning" (The Williams round was basically a standard Minee bullet that had zinc washers attatched that were intended to scour the grooves of the gun's rifling, removing lead and black powder deposits. The round didn't work very well, and was obsoleted by the advent of smokeless powder and jacketed rounds, but the concept isn't fundamentally bad) bullets.

Likewise, you can produce a fully functional assault rifle, submachine gun, or machine gun with extremely basic machine tools, in a cave, with a box of scraps.

Functionally, small arms and ammunition will be unlimited in quantity, although a decrease in quality will be expected over time.

Artillery is a mixed bag. Conventional tube artillery will have trouble with spare parts - especially spare barrels. The barrel of a large cannon requires serious infrastructure to produce, and they last only a few thousand rounds at best - some guns, like the famous British 17-pounder AT gun, had expected lifetimes of under 100 rounds. Beyond that, the gun can still be used, but accuracy will become very poor. On the upside, standard HE rounds can be built with extreme ease (although after awhile they'll have to replace the radar or laser proximity fuse with a timed or contact version, drastically reducing effect), cannister rounds are trivial to make and all-steel anti-armor rounds aren't too hard. Fancier rounds such as APFSDS or APCR would be harder, and precision-guided rounds would be right out.

Conversely, unguided rocket artillery would be available in unlimited quantites. All that is needed for a rocket launcher is tin-snips and sheet metal, and the rocket itself isn't much harder. they'd have to be fired in vast numbers to have great effect - so you fire them in extremely vast numbers.

Mortars are almost as simple as rockets.

Most light vehicles will be used for logistic purposes - hauling bullets and beans is the most important role in a conflict. Some will be used as ambulances instead, and a few will be used for spotting and personal vehicles for officers (not a case of rank having privilege, but serving the absolutely important strategic goal of coordinating activity.) Motorcycles in particular will be pressed into service as couriers and messengers. For vehicles of this sort, spare parts won't be too much of a problem, as an extremely simple engine that requires basic tools to manufacture will suffice. In many cases, the engines will be ripped out in favor of a simpler, easier to maintain model, probably adapted to burn ethanol instead of gasoline. As time goes on, these will find themselves pressed into service as active combat units by conversion into "technicals".

Heavier vehicles will be held in reserve for major engagements, because they use huge amounts of fuel and spare parts in any action, and modern versions require a lot of specialized equipment to make the parts - you can't make the computer for a laser rangefinder without a microprocessor shop no matter what you know, for example. All factors related to artillery apply here.

Aircraft won't be held in reserve. Even at rest their maintenance requirements are too high, so you'll lose them even if you don't use them. Better to use them at peak effectiveness.

In the case of heavy vehicles and aircraft, don't discount the possibility that older types might be reintroduced. An M4 Sherman is no match for a M1 Abrams or an M60 Patton, but if you have to choose between a bad tank (by modern standards) and no tank, bad tank wins every time. Likewise, if you can't get F-16s, building an F-86 Sabre (picking an early jet instead of a late prop-job because the latter can use the much easier to get kerosene for fuel instead of high-octane gasoline, which was one of the reasons the Germans were transitioning aggressively to the Me-262) might be a worthwhile compromise. Something that uses only 1940s technology will be far, far easier to build and maintain with even a degraded modern industrial base. You'll still have the problem of fuel, but it would become a matter of carefully husbanding stocks for decisive need rather than one of "well, I'm out".

The exact nature of the conflict will depend greatly on geographical details - WWI trench lines were as much due to the cramped nature of Central Europe (which allowed both sides to fully fill the front lines with troops and a defense in depth) as it was the outdated tactical thinking of the two sides. Conversely, the freewheeling spectacle of the American Civil War, where troops moved around for advantage and spent almost all their time out of contact except for brisk, bloody battles lasting days at the most, had more to do with the enormous amount of space available than it did any tactical genius on the part of Grant and Lee. A few general principles will probably hold true.

Tactically, a war of maneuver will be much, much harder. Not only will your mobile striking forces deteriorate rapidly, but you will quickly lose the ability to keep supplies flowing to the front lines. The real reason that WWI front lines rarely went anywhere even in a breakthrough was that the men rapidly ran out of supplies because the logistics couldn't keep up. When the two sides collide, it is going to be a straight slugging match. Flanking and similar will be possible, but at infantry speeds in the face of machine-gun fire, it is going to be hard.

Strategically, maneuver is potentially possible, and all strategic effort will be to capture, not destroy, manufacturing and resource processing nodes. Forces defending them might blow them up before retreating, but the attackers would make every effort to avoid this. If the two sides work out a localized equivalent of the Geneva and Hague conventions (even if only informally and unofficially) avoiding the destruction of such facilities might well be an article.

[MrZJunior]

Civilian aircraft can be adapted to a ground attack role. The Tamil Tigers had an air force consisting of recreational planes that they used with some success against government forces. I haven't found much information about what weapons they used, but reports refer vaguely to rockets and bombs. As the use of barrel bombs has shown in recent conflicts you don't necessarily need to be accurate with sorts of weapons.

[Straybow]

Bricks are not designed to withstand sharp focused impacts, nor is the mortar used to put them together all that effective against such forces. A single blow from an ordinary hammer will shatter a brick, while the sort of stones that quickly proved wholly inadequate against cannon fire are more likely to break the hammer.

Sun-dried brick has very different properties from kiln-fired brick. It is almost ductile. While Malbork and some other northern European forts were made of brick they weren't expected to stand against a siege. They are for defense against musket and light guns, or count on their own heavy guns to outrange the portable guns an enemy might bring to bear.

[Carl]

An M4 Sherman is no match for a M1 Abrams or an M60 Patton, but if you have to choose between a bad tank (by modern standards) and no tank, bad tank wins every time.

To wit on this, the conflict in Ukraine has seen Ukraine reactivate at least some of it's stocks of obsolete vehicles, including SU-100's and T34-85's. Both tanks that first fought during WW2.

Also basic Shaped charges are rather easy to make as well. And we can do printed circuit boards these days which makes mass manufacture of basic electronics much easier than say in WW2.

Two big question marks stick out for me though.

1. WHat happened to whoever they where fighting.

2. If they're embargo'd how are they gettign the kind of supplies of raw materials like coal and iron (at a bare minimum), to manufacture things, keep power stations running, e.t.c.