Military tactics ( that were never developed or employed )

Although in the right conditions the technical can be very effective despite the high profile and lack of armour, so a two seater bike with rider and gunner/grenadier or sidecar combo with mg should also be useful in similiar conditions.
Considering the amount of stuff soldiers like to carry around in the desert, like water, food, and ammunition, the unpowered wheel on the sidecar, and the dust and sun in the desert, I would much rather have a 4WD Hilux than a motorcycle. The motorcycle only has an advantage in a transport-limited environment where your really need to be able to pack a lot of personal mobility systems (whatever you choose, from motorcycles or scooters to something like a RAZR), into a relatively small airplane, helicopter, or landing craft. In those cases, the utility and capacity provided by a second or even third motorcycle (depending on the width of the motorcycles and the prospective sidecar) are probably going to be more valuable than the sidecar. Like horses, motorcycle troops should be dismounting to fight, and somebody trying to keep a sidecar-mounted MG on target is going to have a much harder time than someone using the same machine gun in the back of a pickup truck. Finally, sidecars aren't cool so the soldiers will find reasons to leave them behind.
 
Motorcycles, ATVs, and snowscooters absolutely have/had their roles in specialty units like cav recon and airborne and are used in such units. Impromptu irregular units have also been known to use them though trucks, cars, pickups and the like are vastly preferable for general purpose due to sheer availability and much wider utility.

For the role described here though they are generally unfit for purpose. They are vulnerable, don't carry sufficient gear and are hard to supply to entire units which will then have more points of failure, making it hard to achieve the force concentration needed for the exploitation role which generally requires concentrated mobile firepower that motorcycles simply do not offer.
 
Last edited:
Motorcycles, ATVs, and snowscooters absolutely have/had their roles in specialty units like cav recon and airborne and are used in such units. Impromptu irregular units have also been known to use them though trucks, cars, pickups and the like are vastly preferable for general purpose due to sheer availability and much wider utility.

For the role described here though they are generally unfit for purpose. They are vulnerable, don't carry sufficient gear and are hard to supply to entire units which will then have more points of failure, making it hard to achieve the force concentration needed for the exploitation role which generally requires concentrated mobile firepower that motorcycles simply do not offer.
That's fair, but they have been useful in the past (notably WW2) and in some environments could still be useful.
Most of the time a Hilux or equivalent will be better for rapid concemtration of firepower, but motorbikes - with or without sidecars - are low maintenance, fuel efficient and available.
 
That's fair, but they have been useful in the past (notably WW2) and in some environments could still be useful.
Most of the time a Hilux or equivalent will be better for rapid concemtration of firepower, but motorbikes - with or without sidecars - are low maintenance, fuel efficient and available.
In WWII they very rapidly stopped being used in any battlefield capacity due to how vulnerable they were. They kep being used for messaging, liaison and long range patrols in secondary areas.
 
Can ICBMs be converted into anti satellite weapons by 1970-80s ?
A problem for kinetic anti-satellite weapons is Kesslerization. One risks destroying not just the enemies' space assets but also one's own and those of allies and neutrals, thus turning them into enemies.

The flip side is that Kesslerization itself could be easily weaponized by a belligerent on the verge of defeat that doesn't have much to lose anymore. Just detonate a few shrapnel-dispersing bombs in space.
 
Monk78 said:
Given how much combat is conducted in cities during 20 th century , I’m not sure why there were no dedicated Urban warfare specialists units. We have arctic , alpine , jungle warfare etc units

Because this would mean turning a group of soldiers into a kind of "one trick pony" unit. There are training failities and training units that run troops throu courses of this or that kind of combat if needed, but that's it.

This has actually happened a few times. One example was the 29th Infantry Division. Its infantry battalions designated for the Normandy beach assault spent so much time training for fighting across the beach regular tactics were neglected. The old hands were very stale, and the more recent conscripts and many of the very junior NCO had negligible training for the fighting 500 meters inland and the rest of the way to Germany. Like most undertrained soldiers in history they had to learn the hard way.

When I first joined the USMC in 1974 the corps was going through a remedial training program for conventional wars. Since 1966 there had been a increasing emphasis on the specifics of fighting in Viet Nam, until many Marines had no clue about other battlefields or tactics. Three plus decades later when the US Marines withdrew from the Iraqi mission it was found the artillery battalions had spent so much time on the counter insurgency effort the junior artillery officers were not qualified for the complexities of battery, battalion of brigade artillery missions. Again remedial training programs had to be instituted.

When rifles were first introduced in the 18th Century Assorted armies allowed the commanders of 'Rifle' legions, regiments, companies to train them exclusively as snipers. That filed several times when conventional line infantry or cavalry were able to run down a body of rifle men. lacking sufficient training in bayonets, anti cavalry tactics, ect... the rifle units were often massacred. Successful rifle units were given a more balanced training, and used best when line infantry could support them.
 
This has actually happened a few times. One example was the 29th Infantry Division. Its infantry battalions designated for the Normandy beach assault spent so much time training for fighting across the beach regular tactics were neglected. The old hands were very stale, and the more recent conscripts and many of the very junior NCO had negligible training for the fighting 500 meters inland and the rest of the way to Germany. Like most undertrained soldiers in history they had to learn the hard way.

When I first joined the USMC in 1974 the corps was going through a remedial training program for conventional wars. Since 1966 there had been a increasing emphasis on the specifics of fighting in Viet Nam, until many Marines had no clue about other battlefields or tactics. Three plus decades later when the US Marines withdrew from the Iraqi mission it was found the artillery battalions had spent so much time on the counter insurgency effort the junior artillery officers were not qualified for the complexities of battery, battalion of brigade artillery missions. Again remedial training programs had to be instituted.

When rifles were first introduced in the 18th Century Assorted armies allowed the commanders of 'Rifle' legions, regiments, companies to train them exclusively as snipers. That filed several times when conventional line infantry or cavalry were able to run down a body of rifle men. lacking sufficient training in bayonets, anti cavalry tactics, ect... the rifle units were often massacred. Successful rifle units were given a more balanced training, and used best when line infantry could support them.
It becomes a habbit... a bad habbit.
 
It could be, but if you're arming your most of your non-combatants with AAMs, then you've already lost control of the skies to the point they shouldn't be flying in the first place.

Now, turning a strategic bomber into a missile bus? There's a decent use of the idea, assuming your AAM of choice has enough stand-off capability to not endanger the bomber itself. Oh, my beloved B-1R, one day your time will come. ...until NGAP turns even more heads, at any rate.
The RAF Nimrod 2 fleet regularly flew with a pair of Sidewinder AIM 9L on the outboard pylon during the cold war from 1982 onwards.
 
With the invention of AI which can be combined with radar, strategic bombers like the B-52 can have 2-3 autocannon turrets capable of shooting down SAMs?
This is a yes but why moment

The B-52's high intensity combat role is for carrying cruise missiles, ergo it is not supposed to get within range of SAMs, if it's actually dropping bombs then it is not supposed to be fighting anyone with SAMs that can reach its cruise altitude. So the system would just be additional dead weight, drag and maintenance expense

Other strategic bombers are similar to the B-52 (B-1, Tu-95, Tu-160, Tu-22, H-6) or are meant for stealth, which an autocannon turret and a running fire control radar would compromise (B-2, B-21, H-20, PAK DA being generous not calling vaporware)
 
Top