Boom Boom Goes the Tank: The Time Periods of WWIII

[AndyC]

Discuss @Coiler 's latest article here

 

[Tabac Iberez]

I'm kinda annoyed that this article didn't look into the weapons and equipment more closely. In the early fifties and sixties, a ground war Soviet victory is terribly likely, and the fact of the matter is that a good alternate history needs to look into the existent framework before it starts moving things around with changes. Something as seemingly inconsequential as a VT-fuse jammer would have devistating effects, and the fact is campaigns have turned on smaller pieces of kit than this.

 

[Alex Richards]

I'm kinda annoyed that this article didn't look into the weapons and equipment more closely. In the early fifties and sixties, a ground war Soviet victory is terribly likely, and the fact of the matter is that a good alternate history needs to look into the existent framework before it starts moving things around with changes. Something as seemingly inconsequential as a VT-fuse jammer would have devistating effects, and the fact is campaigns have turned on smaller pieces of kit than this.

While you might well be correct, I think this level of extremely technical nuts and bolts stuff is basically why I find the entire genre generally unappealing.

It's just extremely dull for anyone who's not already into the technical specs of military equipment.

 

[Tabac Iberez]

While you might well be correct, I think this level of extremely technical nuts and bolts stuff is basically why I find the entire genre generally unappealing.

It's just extremely dull for anyone who's not already into the technical specs of military equipment.

Oh, that's entirely likely. If you're working within shooting distance of a technothriller, the requisite sperging can get painful. That being said, though, in a war story there's a massive level of technology used by everyone. Even if limited to a single infantryman, so much can go wrong or right as to be ludicrous- and the fact is at least half of it comes down on someone else's kit.

 

[napoleon IV]

While you might well be correct, I think this level of extremely technical nuts and bolts stuff is basically why I find the entire genre generally unappealing.

It's just extremely dull for anyone who's not already into the technical specs of military equipment.

Not only is it dull, but in a lot of cases it's hard to follow. There's way too many techothriller books and TL discussions that become incomprehensible unless you're an engineer or a veteran. I like to think that I'm a smart person, but when I read these books I feel like the kid in class who has to ask a question every two minutes.

 

[Tabac Iberez]

It's astonishing how rarely kit that works really well in factory conditions and on clean rifle ranges (or similar) fails to work in the field.

The SA80 still haunts you to this day then?

 

[Tabac Iberez]

After my time, actually. I used the L1A1, which wasn't too bad in terms of reliability. But then, it was tested.

Also, if I remember correctly it was basically a FAL, which meant it wouldn't be too hard to make a reasonable copy of. Still the point stands, though- kit makes all the difference, even if that difference is just Working or Broken.

 

[Skinny87]

Basically, a knock-off of the FN-FAL.

Kit, competence of users of said kit (having seen American troops circa 1976, I know what incompetence looks like), and a host of other factors.

For example, Down South in 1982, the Argentine ground forces had considerably better (for example, a much higher level of night-vision goggles available) and certainly more abundant kit available (due to the British troops having to carry everything). The Argentine forces absolutely had better boots than the British. And yet, the qualitative differences in the kit wasn't that important. What was important was knowing how to use it.

Part of the problem that I find with these techno-thriller books is that they often focus utterly relentlessly on the kit, and casually assume training (or total lack thereof on the part of Hapless Villains) as a given.

To take a period example; in the mid-1970s, the US Army had some pretty decent kit. It would have been completely useless, because that was the nadir of US Army competence.

Reminds me of an interview my Uni Professor of Military History did with a senior BAOR officer about what might have happened if the war had gone hot, and they'd had to rely on the Americans.

"Turn west and don't stop until the Channel" was apparently his answer

 

[Jophiel]

Honestly there’s too much history over the obsession of military equipment. It’s sort of overwhelming, especially on YouTube.

Maybe how cultures affected in the fact that we’re back in a world war again would be good.

 

[Nebogipfel]

This is an often overlooked factor. It's not whether one bang-stick has a greater rate of fire than another, or if it fires further, or whatever. It's whether the damn thing works after being thrown about, dropped in mud, sat in frozen water-slush while Tommy crossed a river, and so on.

It's astonishing how rarely kit that works really well in factory conditions and on clean rifle ranges (or similar) fails to work in the field.

I remember Clancy himself (who was active on old usenet) becoming very aggressive when (usually veterans) pointed this very point out to him. In the shiny world of 90s/80s technothrillers, western hardware was supposed to work perfectly.