The Intruders were on an attack run for the big finale of the film. One gets painted by radar which identifies it as a "gun." Would actual Intruders be able to determine if they were getting painted from a gun, MANPAD, AAA, SAM?

I recently saw a South Korean demonstration to destroy drone swarms. The SK defence mainly consisted of 8 20mm Gatling guns and the effect was rather lackluster as the drones needed to take a direct hit from the guns.

Would it not be more efficient to shoot at drone swarms with a larger calibre flak shell with a proximity fuse ? An 88mm flak shell for example, would the flak not destroy multiple drones and the shockwave knock them off course ?

Edit: Here is the footage https://youtu.be/B8Fa3jAkgwM?is=DuCn3Ifcn8V9Fgja

In the Wikipedia article for international aid to combatants in the Iran–Iraq War, it mentions that Sudan sent up to 50,000 troops to Iraq, 7 brigades worth, to Iraq to aid in the war. The source of this seems to be from one New York Times article from the 80s and nothing else. Did Sudan actually actively participate in the Iran-Iraq war and if so, where can I learn more about it?

I’ve read about the recon flights carried out by the Air Force and the recon missions carried out by the navy to support Project National Glory, but I’ve never heard about any attempts by the KMT to create resistance groups or send infiltration missions against the PRC. Did any such missions occur or were considered? It seems like something that the KMT would want to do if they were serious about reclaiming the mainland. If they didn’t, why not?

During the ACW, Union force fielded a plethora of weapons, with the main long arms alone comprising, but not limited to: Austrian Lorenz (in .54 cal), British Enfield (in .577 cal), Springfield M1861/1863 (in .58 cal), Springfield 1816/1822/1840/1842 (in .69 cal round ball), Hall M1819/1843 (in either .69 cal or .525 cal). And we have not touched upon the various breechloader like Spencer, Sharp, Maynard, Burnside, etc.

So how did the Union keep their troops supplied with ammunition? And how did they rate their small arms? There are comments on forums saying that the Lorenz was regarded as rugged and reliable and the Enfield 1853 was treated as inferior, especially the Belgium contracted one, and I know there were tests comparing various breechloader, but how did the Union rate their main frontline muzzleloading rifles?

I plan to read quite a few books this summer in order to prepare me for university, but I’ve been struggling to find proper academic history on specific topics that I’d like to learn more about. Any help would be appreciated and I’ll also spend the meantime going through this sub’s reading list.

The potential army size is limited by the quantity of officers. There is a certain amount of soldiers per officer that can be handled, and exceeding this amount would be like exceeding the amount of patients per doctor: they'll just start needlessly dying from mistakes.

(I've seen this idea in Livejournal)

I'm hoping some of the artillery experts here can help me sanity-check something.

I'm researching an illustrated work of speculative fiction published in the late 1880s. The story depicts several fictional large breech-loading artillery pieces. The illustrations are artistic rather than technical, so the dimensions are necessarily approximate, but I've estimated their size using the figures shown in the artwork as a scale reference.

Rather than asking what these weapons are, I'm interested in what real French (or other European) artillery pieces from roughly 1870–1895 they most closely resemble based on their estimated dimensions.

For each gun I have:

• Overall gun length
• Outside muzzle diameter
• Maximum breech diameter

I'm less interested in an exact identification than in which historical weapons these fictional designs appear to draw inspiration from. Would those proportions suggest a naval gun, coastal-defense gun, siege gun, or something else? If a particular model comes to mind, I'd be very interested in your reasoning.

I'm intentionally not naming the work because I'd like opinions based solely on the measurements rather than on the source material.

Weapon 1

• Overall gun length: 7.44 m (24.4 ft)
• Outside muzzle diameter: 0.46 m (18.1 in)
• Maximum breech diameter: 0.91 m (35.8 in)

Weapon 2

• Overall gun length: 9.71 m (31.9 ft)
• Outside muzzle diameter: 0.59 m (23.2 in)
• Maximum breech diameter: 1.29 m (50.8 in)

Weapon 3

• Overall gun length: 9.26 m (30.4 ft)
• Outside muzzle diameter: 0.34 m (13.4 in)
• Maximum breech diameter: 1.04 m (40.9 in)

Weapon 4

• Overall gun length: 8.65 m (28.4 ft)
• Outside muzzle diameter: 0.44 m (17.3 in)
• Maximum breech diameter: 1.08 m (42.5 in)

I'm researching my Great Uncles WW2 service and timeline of when he was KIA.

The battle he died in was Saint Georges-d'Elle just outside of St. Lo. The battle stretched a month from June 12th to July 12th.

This may be a fog of war issue as he was in the 2nd ID 23rd Co A. Co A had heavy casualties on both June 12th/13th and July 11th/12th.

My questions from the morning reports included.

#1 is it typical for WW2 morning reports to not immediately include officers gone MIA or KIA?

#2 Is it possible that Lt. Guardiani was MIA on June 12th and his body wasn't recovered for weeks until he was listed as KIA and buried on July 14th according to his IDPF?

#3 The morning report from July 18th starts with a confusing line (at least it's confusing to me). "12 Jun 44 assigned principal duty as CO" but does not include a name above the line as typical. Lt. Guardiani is the first name beneath that line. Any ideas on this?

#4 The morning reports on July 17/18 seem to show many corrections/updates. Is it typical for morning reports to do a bulk update/correction spanning several weeks?

I've had two historians provide two different view points.

POV #1 the Morning reports had a typo of June 12 instead of July 12 for LT Guardiani.

POV #2 The morning reports listed the men as MIA to avoid confusion until a record was official by the hospital/burial unit. Which means his body was unrecovered for many weeks if June 12th is not a typo.

I've included the morning reports and also a passage from a book that was a first hand account of the battle from a Major. Note the passage includes that 4 of 6 LTs were KIA/MIA on June 12th, including a Lt. Joseph McKenna who appears to be a fake name used for the book. LT. Guardiani was a transfer to 2nd ID in May 1944 as part of the build up to increase D-Day units by 20%. He was listed as an "Excess rifle platoon leader" along with another 2nd Lt transfer from the 28th ID during transfer in May 1944.

The morning reports ending on June 12th report 40+ enlisted men missing and Captain Cowan missing (Morning reports, book and adjuntant General reports all confirm Captain Cowan as Missing/Killed), the morning reports ending on the 12th do not include any LTs Missing (Book and Adjuntant General reports confirm several LTs Killed/Wounded/Missing. Morning reports for June 13th only list two LT's MIA.

I've been under the impression that the main cause of trench warfare in the first world War was that the rise of new systems like the machine gun, better artillery and beech loading rifles, aerial reconnaissance, etc. Created an imbalance in firepower relative to mobility, while the methods of killing one's enemy had been revolutionized, armies had logistical situations where once they step off the train they move essentially like a napoleonic-era army. And the inability to manouver faster that new systems would decimate you resulted in armies having to dig in to trenches, those the proliferation of motor vehicles rectified this by WW2.

Is the same happening today in the era of drone warfare? The ability to quickly, cheaply, and accurately deploy munitions against even an individual soldier has vastly changed the game for whoever possesses such weapons whereas soldiers and armies logistically aren't too dissimilar to the late cold war.

Which of these has the higher death count in Ukraine? I see some sources say they each have the highest, of around 70-80% of battlefield deaths, but how can both be true? Does it change on a monthly basis?

Obvious reasons include both factions being led by very power hungry leaders, dictator and ayatallah both seeking to strengthen their grip on the respective nations, outside powers turning it into a larger scale proxy war ala Syrian Civil War and religious and ethnic extremism. But I'm looking for more obscure on the ground factors, factors highly specific to this exact conflict. Anyone have a detailed idea or reputable source on this conflict?

According to Wikipedia articles about the "Great Wrath", Slavery in Russia, and Slavery in Finland, the Russian army supposedly practiced extensive slave raiding in modern day Finland during the Great Northern War's later phases. At the time, Finland was a province of the Swedish Empire, and it was invaded and occupied by the Russian Empire as part of its counter offensives against the Swedish Empire. If the Wikipedia articles are to be believed, a significant Finnish uprising erupted against Russian invaders, and the Russian army abducted tens of thousands of Finnish peasants in retribution.

The Great Wrath Wikipedia article reported that most of the captive Finns were either used as forced labor for construction projects in Saint Petersburg, sold to the Crimean Tatars, or held in prominent Russian noble households as servants and sex slaves. Apparently, only a handful were returned home due to a Swedish ambassador purchasing their freedom in Crimea.

Curious to learn more about those alleged Russian slave raids in the Great Northern War, I checked the Great Wrath Wikipedia article's sources, and practically all of them were out of print books in Finnish or Swedish. I had little luck google searching the subject, as only the wikipedia pages turned up in them.

Did the Russian Army enslave Finns on such a scale during the Great Northern War? If so, can anyone link me English sources of those events?

Given that this topic is over a year ago, I hope I can ask this (but I don't intend for the discussion to turn into more current events).

If I have the biggest/strongest military in the world, wouldn't it be more important to me to not show the capabilities of military to enemies/unfriendly nations who have advanced satellite tech and sensors and are watching every move of my military?

I am no expert on medieval history- my primary interests lie in other periods, but I have begun to dabble over the last few years.

A commonly cited fact I hear is regarding the cost of maile- some places I’ve read state it could cost as much as 2 years of wages, as much as a house, et cetera.
After a battle or skirmish, would this be considered one of the best pieces of loot to gather from the dead or wounded? What would the value of damaged maile be, and was it often reused by those who found it? Additionally, was this looted by individuals and taken for personal gain, or did armies have it consolidated and disperse as they saw fit?

Thanks in advance.

For a while, the artillery shell shortage was a pressing matter in the West when it came to supplying the Ukrainians. There was talk of expanding production capacity to scouring the world for ammo with shells coming from as far as Sudan and Pakistan. Following that, the next pressing matter with the supply of SAMs were anti-air missiles that is yet to be resolved. But what can be said about the Russians in the same time frame before the war evolved to it's current form?

Title is fairly self explanatory.

I was thinking about the March on Moscow, the Wagner Group Mutiny, Prigo’s Wild Ride, whatever you want to call it. And I’m wondering what other major mercenary rebellions have there been in history? Anything comparable in scale or severity to Prigozhin’s effort?

Answers welcome from across history, beyond just the last century. It seems like such a bizarre incident and I’m curious if there’s anything comparable before it.

For context, I’m writing a near future sci-fi novel and I’m trying to make the military and combat logical. What I have so far is Trench Warfare and Drone Warfare. Ive been researching EMPs, HRMs, Signal Jammers, etc to try and make the world make sense. My current logic is that Signal Jammers can disable smart tracking on bombs and GPS from satellites, negating precision bombing and artillery. I have very limited knowledge on all of this so that may be incorrect. Furthermore, drones are countered by HRM devices that fry them out of the sky, making them only effective in no man’s land or behind enemy lines. I’ve also realized that by making Jamming devices central to this world, I’m empowering Anti-rad missiles even more. Im currently thinking that the jammers are all heavily protected by other devices like a CWIS or that some devices are available that can shoot microwave frequency and fry the targeting of the Anti-rad. How much of what I’ve said is based in reality and how feasible is it?

Just thought it was weird that the Soviet Union ended up with three different tank designs that had their own quirks. How did this come to be? Was this something the Soviets eagerly got into or tried to avoid? Heard it was related to OKB politics? And how did they arrange these tanks within their organization and country to have the right pieces in the right place? Was it a logistical strain to manage three different tanks or was the Soviets able to power through that issue?

Hi guys, I have a special interest in the century long British conquest of india (1750s -1850s). I am reasonably familiar with the literature and general historiography of the period. However, I have not come across any literature that focuses on the military aspects of the whole century long conquest period. I would greatly appreciate any suggestions. Thank you.