Having recently seen reports of Chinese mining using EV dump trucks with exchangeable batteries, the question has been drifting around my head.

What impact will solid state batteries and Heavy weight EVs have on warfare ?

If a Tank is an EV, does that make it harder to spot on thermals ? But easier to disable ?

Will supply chains utilize electric trucks ?

Will we see rapid deployment solar grids for battery charging ?

The army as an organization is very strict, you could say authoritarian, with a very clear vertical hierarchy. Even in the armed forces of the most democratic and progressive nations, I believe the model remains the same. And in time of a great war, nations start mobilization and use forced conscription, which represses the freedom of conscripts to protect the freedom of the whole society. And even in peacetime, it's a very particular career with lots of limitations and shortcomings compared to the private sector. So, to put it shortly, if you are a guy from a developed democratic nation, army service fucking sucks comes in sharp contrast with what you usually have in such a society. In contrast, I remember in Orwell's Homage to Catalonia he describes the militia in which he served as exactly the opposite – egalitarian, volunteer, non-repressive, with officers who were all down to earth. But his militia was poorly equipped and trained, and after a short time was purged by their own Stalinist allies. So, I have a question. Is it possible to have effective non-repressive armed forces?

Say, you have a tank or combat engineer battalion, and each of the companies gets attached to a separate formation to support it. What happens to the HQ and whatever is left of the BN? What is the role of the CO in that case?

And by that i mean, if it had been used in battle against other navies at the time, would it have been able to fight effectively and defend itself? Would it be very coordinated? Or was it nothing more than a shiny paper tiger?

Im specifically asking about how effective it was as a fighting force compared to its peers, i understand that fighting is only a small part of what navies actually do, but in this case i am asking about their combative capability compared to other navies at the time

Note: I realize that some of the secondary guns listed are dual purpose and some of them are not so I don't mean that it's a "well you're comparing apples and oranges" - it's more of a general discussion on logistics of ammunition types.

Edit: when I say secondary guns, I mean secondary guns for BBs and main guns for destroyers and cruisers.

US Navy:

Main guns of BBs from battleship not scrapped after WW1 to WW2:

• 14 inch - Standards
• 16 inch - North Carolina, South Dakota, and Iowa classes

Secondary guns on BBs or main armament on cruisers and destroyers:

• 4 inch
• 5 inch
• 6 inch
• 8 inch

Royal Navy:

Main guns of BBs is less of an issue as the QEs/Renowns/R-Class were WW1 vintage and the KGVs were matching the Washington Naval Treaty:

• 14 inch - King George V class
• 15 inch - Queen Elizabeth class, Renown class, R-class, Hood, Vanugard
• 16 inch - Nelson class

Secondary guns on BBs or main armament on cruisers and destroyers could be any of the below:

• 4 inch
• 4.5 inch
• 4.7 inch
• 5.25 inch
• 6 inch
• 8 inch
• Possibly forgetting others.

In terms of the Royal Navy, I'll just make the comment that when you are the biggest navy in the world (or one of the biggest at the end of WW2), you can afford to take on inefficiencies in logistics if it means you can kill your enemy better and faster. The American side seems to be more focused on standardization than the British - especially during WW2 where anything new that floated had a good chance of having a 5 inch/38 on it. But in fairness to the British at least for Vanguard, they used the same 5.25 inch DP gun mounts as the King George V class.

I'm reading a book about the WW1 battles of Champagne and Artois in 1915 right now. Where the French and British offensives failed to do much despite massive investment of men and shells.

One of the things mentioned is that the Germans used reverse slope defenses. Now I read the wiki article about it, but I'm curious how this worked in general.

I can understand, especially in WW1 how it helps you, since it would be a lot harder to shell a trench you can't see in this era,but how else would it work? I mean normally you'd not want to concede high ground (the crest) to the enemy right?

So would the Germans just sit there and wait until the attackers crest the hill and then gun them down?

What about in more recent times, is this still a good idea?

I'm not going to include any escort carriers or anything after 1943 because it's a bit academic at that point.

• USS Lexington - May 1942 - Battle of the Coral Sea
• USS Yorktown - June 1942 - Battle of Midway
• USS Wasp - September 1942 - Guadalcanal
• USS Hornet - October 1942 - Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands

Edit: I guess another way of asking is which fleet carrier loss hurt the US navy the most during the early pacific campaign?

Double edit: maybe the wording should be strategically significant

I am looking for books on British military actions during the fall of the Empire but BEFORE the Falkland Wars. Any suggestions?

According to wiki, pieces such as the Flak 16 and even older ones like the French 75 being put on high elevation mounts could shoot more than 4000 meters high. Due to that i began wondering what chances would a slow flying, relatively low altitude bomber have against such guns?

I know that WW1 AA fire was generally not very effective, but I would like to understand why exactly, beyond "the gun doesnt shoot high enough".

I imagine its a mix of not enough guns, difficult use (since some versions of the 75 AA required a lot of time to prepare for firing), and targets for bombing not being very predictable? This has zero sources but i emjoy guessing

Do note this is not a question of the feasibility of military jet-skis. The issues with jet-skis in a military setting are many and if they were effective then we'd be seeing their deployment as good ideas spread as quickly as bad ones. However as fans of military history, we all know that a bad idea has never stopped military theorists before. Especially for use in littoral, archipelago and delta environments where you can see how an argument could be made on paper for roles such as patrolling, reconnaissance and raiding where a jet-skis small size and speed would be more advantageous.

I'm excluding more law enforcement/civillian leaning uses of jet-skis from this question such as SAR even if used by a military and focusing much more on overtly military minded applications.

I do know that the Kraka jet-ski is apparently used by US special forces. I say apparently because every article I've read about it says the Kraka is used by US special forces but all fail to mention which ones or when it was adopted. None of the articles even mention SOCOM or any US military branch and in some articles special forces is capitalised and in others it's not so I'm unsure if special forces is refering to US Army Special Forces or using the term in the colloquial sense. Doesn't help that all the artcles read more like advertising for the manufacturer rather than reporting on actual military procurement so I'm pretty iffy on if this is true or not. If anyone has any information on that then please feel free to share. However even of it is true, while I suppose it's technically a jet-ski, from what I can gather it's more of an evolution of the RHIB rather than a more traditionally designed jet-ski which is what thinking about with this question.

So does anyone know of any proposals, plans or attempts to employ military jet-skis?

So it’s the first smokeless powder rifle, with a tube capacity of 10 rounds. What were French generals/logisticians expecting with this? Why did they adopt it and why was smokeless powder so important in their doing so?

Also: It has a really complex and weird loading process. Did this affect their decisions in any way?

As I understand, most bayonet charges never really connect as the opposing side has likely fled long before. Despite bayonet charges being a staple on Napoleonic era warfare there surprisingly isn't a lot of casualties produced by bayonet charges with the most common weapons inflicting casualties being muskets followed by sabres and cannons (using this source as reference). Even with muskets being the primary source of casualties countries still used bayonet charges as a shock tactic.

My question is basically when would this charge occur? I highly doubt it would be first thing someone would do, but would this occur under the cover of smoke after exchanging fire, covering fire from other formations, etc. As an add-on how were shock heavy armies (like the Swedish using Gå-på tactics) able to consistently close the gap, despite engagements typically occurring around 100-300 yards, without getting shot to bits?

Occasionally I will see discussion online about how counter insurgency doctrine has advanced over time. Obviously the tools are completely different in the 2020s even compared to the 2000s not to mention the 1960s or earlier. But does modern doctrine and equipment really result in better outcomes against insurgents? Or is it a question of political will and resource dedication more so than the specific tactics and equipment?

This subreddit is rightfully strict on the quality of answers, but I think we should also be strict on some of the questions that are posed on this subreddit.

If you just look at the current frontpage it is full with lazy questions that do not require this subreddit. Some are missing grammar, others are missing time specification, and again others are simply in a completely wrong premise. But most annoyingly are showerthought questions such as:

Why didn't they do A?

And then the comments are:

But they definitely did A...

I feel like most answers first need to establish that the question premise is wrong or find that the question is too broad to even begin answering.

I'd suggest we put the scientific questioning as a post prerequisite. These would include the formula:

In what manner/To what extend/What were the reasons for...
  + topic 
  + time period 
  + geograpical/cultural constraints
  + Question mark

Any questions not following this system could then be easily removed for low effort.

Inspired by this question over on AskHistorians, it's notable that today Native Americans serve in the military at five times the rate of the national average.

This is particularly interesting given the history involved:

• The US military played key roles at various points in the displacement and destruction of various Native American polities

• It also served as the final enforcement mechanism for policies imposed on Native Americans such as removing children from their families to be educated in US-American culture with the intent of "killing the Indian and saving the man"

• Racism in general society reached into the military to perpetuate segregation during most of the Jim Crow Era

Yet at the same time, in World War II the United States federal government decided to put Native Americans in "white" military units over the objections and attempts by Southern officials to enforce segregation. This is particularly interesting since Southern Democrats played a key role in the Roosevelt Administration's base, which resulted in careful writing of the laws surrounding the GI Bill and the New Deal to heavily exclude African-Americans from their benefits despite their service.

And in World War I, ten thousand Native Americans enlisted in the US Army, even though they were not considered citizens under the laws of the United States. And the nasty business of lynching, segregation (which President Woodrow Wilson made sure to extend into the federal civil service in his term), and the continuing "kill the Indian and save the man" policies before the change of course in the mid-20th century.

How did the armed forces manage this? Were recently defeated and compelled Native American polities a significant source of recruits for the Army back when the Indian Wars were at their peak? How did the integration of Native Americans into the armed services work after the end of Reconstruction and the rise of Jim Crow, especially with the presence of Southern officers? Was Native American recruitment always this disproportionately high, or does it reflect a gradual narrowing of options for Native Americans or changing attitudes in the services or among Native Americans regarding military service?

Basically what the title says, anyone have them or know where I can find them?

The original book has a very high level map for each dream but the copies I can find are fairly blurry and indistinct, not that there is a ton of detail to begin with.

I'm hoping that at some point in the last *century* since it's been written someone has actually taken the time to illustrate the various entrenchments and positions described in the text!

This might be a silly question—I’m not sure—but the other day I was watching a video about the Great Fire of London in 1666, and I found myself wondering: given all the naval wars between France and England from the 16th to the 18th century, why didn't either country send a small team—say, three people—into enemy territory via a neutral merchant ship to start fires in port cities using torches? After all, this was a time when cities were full of timber structures and firefighting forces were scarce and ill-equipped.

Have there been similar operations in the past? I know there were privateers who looted towns before burning them down, but this is different. You can fight a privateer ship, but you can't check a town of several thousand inhabitants to see if there are three people there ready to start a fire.

Is seems as effective been deployed basically early Armoured Vehicles but why it never widespread used?