Mountain warfare

Email
Comment *
File	Select/drop/paste files here
* = required field	[▶ Show post options & limits] Confused? See the FAQ.

Embed	(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options	Do not bump (you can also write sage in the email field) Spoiler images (this replaces the thumbnails of your images with question marks) Hide country (this board displays your country when you post if this is unchecked)
Password	(For file and post deletion.)
Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf Max filesize is 16 MB. Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000. You may upload 5 per post.

File: ef04da5c4b9d060⋯.jpg (244.12 KB, 1500x1000, 3:2, designated_comfy_marksman.jpg)

File: 51144540470eca9⋯.jpeg (187.12 KB, 860x497, 860:497, Germans with mules.jpeg)

Mountain warfare Strelok 02/06/18 (Tue) 11:36:42 8bd373 No.548615

There are so many things to discuss here, so there are a few of them:

>what new tactics did the USSR and the USA came up with in Afghanistan?

>India, Pakistan and China are all active in the Himalayas, but would their incompetence let them actually fight a war there?

>are those Chinese high altitude tanks worth a dam, or is it just a waste of resources to send tanks to such places?

>are mules and bicycles the future?

>why haven't we seen the US Army wasting billions on making a robotic mule?

>does mountain warfare need extra speshul forces, or is it enough to use light infantry with some additional training?

>will drones and mortars with guided shells slaughter slowly moving infantry, making a mountain offensive against entrenched enemy positions suicidal?

Strelok 02/06/18 (Tue) 11:58:25 6e3998 No.548619

>>548615

All "mountain warfare" needs is a bunch of napalm.

We tested it on the communists and burned every last one of them, along with the mountain. No survivors. Except for the current year worshipers also known as KKE

Strelok 02/07/18 (Wed) 07:08:30 ea52e6 No.548883

>>548615

>>does mountain warfare need extra speshul forces, or is it enough to use light infantry with some additional training?

You mean like a Mountain Division?

Strelok 02/07/18 (Wed) 08:07:55 c56be8 No.548887

What's so hard about fighting on a mountain?

Strelok 02/07/18 (Wed) 08:15:15 78f279 No.548888

>>548887

Shit rolls downhill but, nothing makes it uphill easily. Advantage in mountains always goes to the locals.

Strelok 02/07/18 (Wed) 08:17:11 c20c80 No.548889

>>548887

>better visibility

>better range

>better trajectory of missiles

>limited options for movement

>chokepoints, a fuckton of them

>harder logistics. only a few roads capable of handling convoys

Mountains are hell for warfare. when you are on top of one its hard as fuck to get you out of it

Strelok 02/07/18 (Wed) 08:31:36 dc99c1 No.548892

>>548619

The Greek has a point here, why waste time sending specially trained and equipped infantry into the mountains when you can just have your airforce/artillery drop some napalm on them?

Strelok 02/07/18 (Wed) 08:32:00 b2561e No.548893

File: 93e491b9cad3a01⋯.jpeg (51.84 KB, 799x537, 799:537, serveimage.jpeg)

>>548887

>>548889

Also:

>next to no landing spots for helos

>extreme weather

>more wind

>winters are 10 times worse

>new troops need to acclimate to air pressure

>carrying full kit up a mountain fucking hard

>next to no cover on the side of a mountain

>rockfalls, avalanches and landslides can fuck you up

>low temperatures can mess with metallurgy of your weapons

>any mines you place on a mountain will eventually be washed down into the valleys

Strelok 02/07/18 (Wed) 08:42:29 b2561e No.548894

File: ae7a3cedf4aa2fc⋯.jpg (1.18 MB, 5472x3648, 3:2, serveimage2.jpg)

File: 793286ed1910cb5⋯.jpeg (69.89 KB, 799x551, 799:551, serveimage3.jpeg)

>>548893

I forgot:

>radio will be blocked by mountains

>soldiers need more food due to weather and extreme physical requirements

>hills=caves=hiding spots

>next to no vegetation=no concealment

>snow can blind soldiers

>longer range requires better optics for weapons to be effective, which means more weight and higher cost per soldier

Strelok 02/07/18 (Wed) 09:48:47 eb76ee No.548899

File: b9afec84240517a⋯.jpg (67.84 KB, 307x480, 307:480, incline-postcard1.jpg)

File: 38209226cc5e8c9⋯.jpg (384.42 KB, 1200x900, 4:3, Looking_down_the_Manitou_S….jpg)

Y'all are fucking pussies. Just strap up your cheap mountain mule and stay under the tree lines but out of the valley. Only governments can't into asymmetric mountain warfare, and aircraft is easy to shoot down in the mountains with AA since getting too high up will lead to altitude sickness/eventually asphyxiation.

>t. Rockey Mountain man who climbs the incline at least once a month

Strelok 02/07/18 (Wed) 18:01:13 b2561e No.548965

File: a9fe97341f51ebf⋯.png (118.06 KB, 778x956, 389:478, bullied to surrender.png)

>>548899

>governments

>can't into asymtrical warfare

If you wanted me to disregard your opinion you could have simply said that you were retarded.

Pic related. The US fucked the Taliban so hard that some of them were willing to turn over their leader. All it takes is enough force and the "asymmetrical" part works both ways.

Strelok 02/07/18 (Wed) 18:21:48 3e4ce1 No.548967

File: 98a06a0ff3df724⋯.jpg (123.93 KB, 720x651, 240:217, Italian-Bersaglieri-light-….jpg)

>>548883

I guess the question is that how big and specialized the units should be. It makes sense to have dedicated light infantry that can operate without IFVs, or in extreme cases even without trucks. But how many such units would you realistically need, and how should you organize them? And would they just need a few months of extra training in mountain warfare, and also some special equipment; or would you need overspecialized units that are wasted if they operate on places flatter than the Alps? After all, you don't need scores of mountain divisions if you just want a platoon of highly trained soldiers to take out a few ragheads in Afghanistan.

Strelok 02/07/18 (Wed) 19:14:43 6080c6 No.548978

>why haven't we seen the US Army wasting billions on making a robotic mule?

Have you forgotten about Boston Dynamics Big Dog already? DARPA threw cash at BD's robotics R&D for nearly a decade but despite the huge advancements made in robotic locomotion, they never solved the issues of power supply and demand. Even the gas powered designs like Big Dog weren't energy efficient enough to be operationally useful (I don't think they ever got it to last as long as human one-day marching distances but I'm not sure).

I'm not blaming BD for overlooking that problem, that wasn't what they were tasked with. The problem is that DARPA's efforts ro develop small, efficient power sources haven't produced anything significant despite decades of trying.

Strelok 02/07/18 (Wed) 19:15:05 6080c6 No.548979

File: 4ab9c554ee06873⋯.gif (966.93 KB, 346x259, 346:259, giphy (2).gif)

>>548978

Forgot my gif.

Strelok 02/07/18 (Wed) 19:20:54 d7a893 No.548982

>>548965

That's not even what asymmetric means, jackass.

Strelok 02/07/18 (Wed) 19:33:20 b2561e No.548989

>>548982

>asymmetric

>not symmetrical

>An object is invariant to any transformations.

An uneven fight is going to be uneven, no matter where, or when.

You just need to make the asymmetry work for you, and stomp the enemy using superior firepower.

Strelok 02/08/18 (Thu) 00:58:48 42467a No.549059

Mountain fighting is weird more than hard.

Infantry need light equipment, but it needs to last a long time without resupply. So instead of shoulder fired rockets, carry a homo and a lot of shells. Instead of a big jeep, drive a smaller motorbike.

It also requires self sufficiency and foraging that we stopped encouraging in WWII.

>>548615

The chinese had to make a light tank because their main had 18hp/t, and you lose about 1hp per km of altitude.

Strelok 02/08/18 (Thu) 01:41:39 eb76ee No.549069

>>548989

Asymmetric warfare refers to leadership and troop movements, not who has the advantage in terms of logistics/numbers.