h a l f b a k e r yIf you can read this you are not following too closely.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Apart from the simple athletic events, competing countries armed forces would demonstrate their virtuosity in close-order drill and precision marching, mine clearance (individual and team or relay events), air to air combat, house clearance against the clock, precision parachuting, 100 metres belly-crawl
under fire, sub-chasing, trench-digging, grenade-throwing, improvised field cookery, boot-polishing, casualty treatment and evacuation, and chemical warfare drill.
Weapons would be simulators or practice rounds (apart from rifle shooting at simulated targets, etc.). Every effort would be made to make sure no-one actually gets hurt, apart from the usual cuts and bruises inherent in running about and jumping on things.
The events would of course be televised. The audience gets a chance to see some impressive bangs and flashes.
Judging would be impartial, with a clear scoring system. Anti-doping regulations would be enforced. Equipment would be subject to the eagle eye of scrutineers, and handicapping would apply to differing equipments i.e. tanks, aircraft etc. to make sure the end result was as far as possible only a function of the skill of the personnel, not because they had some fancy radar on their aircraft or a self-levelling gun on their tank.
Armed forces would get a chance to show off their prowess without hurting anyone or starting a war. It might even promote international understanding and reconciliation ... but probably won't.
World's First 'Tank Biathlon'
http://www.youtube....watch?v=FYJRCDwYMQY
Tanks a lot [PainOCommonSense, Jan 15 2014]
Knightclub
http://www.youtube....watch?v=8ofQ8tfLcRc
Retrobaked [PainOCommonSense, Jan 15 2014]
The History Channel: Ultimate Soldier Challenge
http://www.history....e-soldier-challenge
straight from Comedy Central. [FlyingToaster, Jan 18 2014]
Field Gun Competition
http://www.youtube....watch?v=Rxz4aPoudv8
Rather like an international version of this sort of thing? [TomP, Jan 18 2014]
Achtung – Panzer!
http://en.m.wikiped...Achtung_-_Panzer%21
Prophetic. [8th of 7, Jan 21 2014]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
//Every effort would be made to make sure no-one
actually gets hurt// |
|
| |
Have you been taking those medicated suppositories
again? |
|
| |
<looks closely at label on packet> |
|
| |
Aw noooooo ... just wait until we get our hands on the Intercalary Twin .... |
|
| |
Oh, and they're single-use. |
|
| |
International military-only marksmanship competitions
already exist. They could definitely benefit from
expansion. [+] |
|
| |
Instead of time penalties, rules infractions will be met with
precision airstrikes, which themselves could perhaps be
part of another event. |
|
| |
Head-to-head Bailey-bridge erection would be a great
endurance race. |
|
| |
I'm not so sure. You've involved rules. Military
conflicts don't work like that. Cheating is kind of
the point... you'd have the US Marine Corps
leading the pack toward the finish line in the 15km
yomp-up-a-big-hill with-a-big-backpack event, to
be overtaken by paratroopers floating in by
parachute after a HALO jump, only to find that the
SAS had infiltrated the finish-line staff over a 9
month period and were there all along. |
|
| |
Would stealing another team's food be frowned
upon or held as an example of crafty supply-line
interdiction? |
|
| |
// rules infractions will be met with precision airstrikes // |
|
| |
Only with flour bombs, or dye markers. Emphasis on low-lethality, here. |
|
| |
// Bailey-bridge erection would be a great endurance race // |
|
| |
There would also be the traditional "initiative test" events, such as "You have two oil drums, four planks, one piece of rope and one rather nice antique brocade smoking jacket. Get all your team and their equipment across the stream without any of them getting wet". |
|
| |
// definitely benefit from expansion // |
|
| |
... to larger calibres, like 155mm ... |
|
| |
// were there all along // |
|
| |
No, that would be cheating. |
|
| |
// Would stealing another team's food be frowned upon of held as an example of craft supply-line interdiction? // |
|
| |
It would be valid in certain events. Ambushing supplies, contaminating fuel, capturing the competitor's team members could all be legitimate. |
|
| |
For instance, Team A have a camp containing an "asset" to protect; Team B have to take it. Infiltration vs. sentries; who is most alert, who is most stealthy ? |
|
| |
Right, so what about ACTUALLY invading another
nation, subjugating their population, and disbanding
their armed forces prior to the Military Olympics?
Would that get you a bye in the first round of the
barrels and stream test? |
|
| |
Getting a pad of requistion chits out of Quarter Stores when you've already used the last chit in your existing pad is always a good one. |
|
| |
// You've involved rules. Military conflicts don't work like
that // |
|
| |
I'm talking about penalties for intentionally killing
opponents. Think pond hockey rules. |
|
| |
Pond hockey has rules now ? Who knew … |
|
| |
// Would that get you a bye in the first round
of the barrels and stream test? // |
|
| |
No, absolutely not. There has to be a level
battlefield. |
|
| |
Can they all wear berets? There ought to be berets. |
|
| |
//pond hockey rules// Do whatever you need to with the
dynamite, but don't blow up the beer.
Park on the pond
if you have to, but don't run over the beer.
High-sticking
is only acceptable if you can get away with it, but please
don't hurt the guy that brings the beer. |
|
| |
Never played pond hockey, but that would be my guess on
rules... |
|
| |
Extra points for looking and sounding like Bernard
Law Montgomery? |
|
| |
//Never played pond hockey, but that would be my
guess on rules...// |
|
| |
Sounds like RAF rules: "The Mk2 underwing pylon is
certified for high G subsonic flight at all altitudes, it
may be paired with guided or unguided munitions or
fuel storage up to 1500lbs, you can also get 2 18
gallon kegs of the good stuff in a storage pod" |
|
| |
//
Pond hockey has rules now ? Who knew …
// |
|
| |
Only that there must be an equal number of players on
each team* and that the puck, if one is used, must not be
triangular. |
|
| |
*thus the penalty imposed for assassination. |
|
| |
//Extra points for looking and sounding like Bernard Law
Montgomery ?// |
|
| |
Points, no. An Earldom, adulation bordering on deification from the
British people, and the undying (and entirely unjustified) loathing and
contempt of the U.S. ground forces, yes. |
|
| |
Defection issues could be problematic... just like the real Olympics. |
|
| |
//Extra points for looking and sounding like Bernard
Law Montgomery ?// |
|
| |
You'll have to do better than that if you want the bonus
score; your impersonation must include ignoring vital
intelligence on a regular basis and making all your
teammates stand around waiting while you perfect your
gold-medal strategy. |
|
| |
Yes. Personally, I prefer the mild-mannered Archibald Wavell. |
|
| |
// ignoring vital intelligence on a regular basis // |
|
| |
// routinely allow an enemy on the run to get away, even when you
can easily prevent their escape // |
|
| |
Oooh, sounds like the US is going to be right up the top of the 'ol
medal table there --- |
|
| |
MacArthur on Luzon.
Eisenhower's "Broad Front" startegy in
Autumn '44.
Patton's attack on Metz.
Fredendall at Kasserine Pass …
|
|
| |
<placeholder for extensive list of US Army
screwups> |
|
| |
// Patton's attack on Metz.
Fredendall at Kasserine Pass … // |
|
| |
Both results of Monty's ineptitude in Africa. |
|
| |
// MacArthur on Luzon. // |
|
| |
MacArthur was a self-absorbed blowhard, just like Monty. |
|
| |
// Eisenhower's "Broad Front" strategy... // |
|
| |
...eventually succeeded where Market-Garden failed.
Interesting... |
|
| |
See, here's the thing: no one man got it done. It was the
combined efforts of millions that won WWII, a fact that has
been acknowleged by a number of well-known historical
figures...with the notable exception of Bernard
Montgomery
Law, who won WWII all by himself. |
|
| |
// <placeholder for extensive list of US Army screwups>
// |
|
| |
One word is all I require to refute that vague allegation of
mass incompetence: |
|
| |
Don't forget 1905 either. |
|
| |
Look, fellas, there's only one way to determine whose
military is least incompetent, and that's obviously the
Military Olympics. |
|
| |
Or a great big war. So, two ways. |
|
| |
// One word is all I require to refute that vague allegation of mass
incompetence: Dunkirk. // |
|
| |
Well, we didn't know there were any Americans in command at
Dunkirk, being as at that time the bulk of the U.S. was cowering
behind a fig-leaf of self-serving neutrality (Although there may well
have been a few fighter pilots with the RAF), and we have always been
of the opinion that the mass incompetence was french, but if you want
to claim the credit with a specific admission of incompetence, we're
happy to accept it. |
|
| |
// Bernard Montgomery Law, who won WWII all by himself. // |
|
| |
Field Marshal The Viscount Montgomery of Alamein did indeed
achieve most of it practically single handed, and could have cleaned
up the lot if Ike had given him the forces for his thrust against the Ruhr
in 1944, which would have completely overwhelmed Model and von
Rundstedt as the Westwall was unmanned and totally unprepared. |
|
| |
Oh, and the Russians were in it too ... you know, the ones who started
fighting a half-year before the USN was caught with its
collective pants round its ankles ? |
|
| |
Doubtless if the US does participate in the Military Olympics they'll
turn up half way through, and then ever afterwards claim the fact that
the event was a success was all down to them. |
|
| |
Weather's been mild for the time of year, hasn't it? |
|
| |
It has indeed, but then it often is at the start
of the Yank-baiting season. |
|
| |
You're being unfair, [8th]. If they hadn't captured
that Enigma machine we'd have lost the war. And if
they hadn't invented the jet engine, we'd have lost
all the wars since then. |
|
| |
Hey, I'd love to be the first person to acknowledge that
Russia flat-out won WWII and the rest of us helped. My
point is that Monty would probably have been the last. |
|
| |
I'd have thought that self doubt is somewhat
selected against in military leadership. |
|
| |
Also //Allied counter-offensive, he was shot
through the right lung by a sniper.[19]
Montgomery was hit once more though, in the
knee.[22] He was awarded the Distinguished
Service Order for gallant leadership: the citation
for this award, published in the London Gazette in
December 1914 reads:
Conspicuous gallant leading on 13th October, when
he turned the enemy out of their trenches with
the bayonet. He was severely wounded.[23]// |
|
| |
Get shot twice, go back, get handy with a
bayonet. |
|
| |
Plenty of heroes get nothing but the Soldier's Cross for their
sacrifice, plenty of others receive citation, and a few go on
to become largely inept military leaders who make one
rather obvious observation about the enemy's habits, win a
fairly one-sided battle, and ride their unjustified public
reknown for the rest of the war. |
|
| |
//hadn't invented the jet engine...// All those MiG's in Korea were fitted with fully licensed, then later reverse-engineered versions of, Rolls Royce Nenes. |
|
| |
Yes, well, somebody had to give us some fair competition. I
mean, where else were they going to get quality tech?
China's jet development program was still in the water
buffalo phase in the 50s. |
|
| |
// //hadn't invented the jet engine...// // |
|
| |
Funny really, if we hadn't given the USSR the Nene,
then no Cold war. Jets Vs prop... no contest. |
|
| |
Great idea, although the argument could be made
that WW1 and WW2 were a sort of military Olympics. |
|
| |
8ths best idea, hands down. |
|
| |
// 8ths best idea, hands down // |
|
| |
france's best idea - hands up ... |
|
| |
france's only idea - hands up ... |
|
| |
[link] for one event to be included. |
|
| |
I am in no way French, but I don't think they deserve the above. |
|
| |
If you want to learn a lesson from the collapse of France in 1940, it's not about national cowardice but about partisan division. The French left and the French right were too busy scoring points off each other to focus properly on the incoming blitzkrieg. Both left and right resisted heroically, but they utterly failed to resist *together*. |
|
| |
Had they not made that mistake, well... they might have lost anyway for other reasons, but not nearly so quickly or completely. |
|
| |
The reputation of the nation of France and its people as
cowardly is inaccurate and unfounded. In fact, the French
have a centuries-strong military tradition of throwing their
finest and bravest men directly into the maw of their
enemy's strongest
positions. |
|
| |
The French people's reputation for being rude, self-
absorbed pricks is spot-on, however. |
|
| |
Not cowardly. Simply not effective strategists. Build
an immovable defense line that can be easily
circumvented, spend a fortune in resources doing it,
depend on it for safety, and advertise it's position
and limits to the enemy. Swell plan that. |
|
| |
Would International pick up, YMCA, LAPD, UN, NFL, Masonic lodges, High School ROTC, or Scouts be allowed to field teams ? |
|
| |
I'm not sure they had much of a choice. Historical
precedent shows that wooden border gates and customs
officials cannot turn back seven* armored divisions. |
|
| |
*it may not have been seven. I have to go check that. |
|
| |
The Belgians were professed neutrals (as were the Dutch) and were
not over-endowed with armoured divisions ... |
|
| |
// Had the Belgians not allowed the Germans to invade through their
territory // |
|
| |
"Had the hedgehog not allowed the steamroller to squash it ..." |
|
| |
I should have said 'panzer divisions' to clarify my point. |
|
| |
No, but they were comparable in their own context. They
outclassed nearly every tank the Allies could field.
Sure, they were only fielding Panzer IIs and IIIs when they
crossed Belgium, but the all the French had to meet them
were twenty-year-old FT-17s and a handful of Char Bs, and
none of them--I come now to the salient point--none of
them were stationed along the Belgian border. |
|
| |
At the risk of being relevant here, can I just mention
1905? |
|
| |
The "deep penetration" tactics typified by Hurrying Heinz were
devastating compared to the Allied 'infantry tank' doctrine. Its success
took OKH by surprise and lead to near-panic because the marching
troops just couldn't keep up, leaving the flanks exposed. |
|
| |
The defeat and failure was intellectual; bear in mind that Guderian
was 52 and Rommel was 49; Weygand was 73, Gamelin 68, Lord Gort
a mere stripling of 54. |
|
| |
To a man on foot carrying 50 lbs of weapons and
equipment, getting your ass blown up by a 75mm gun that
cruises around at 15 mph could definitely be described as
'lightning war'. |
|
| |
// I'm sure the Belgians had aircraft and/or telegraph lines
to France which could have been used to warn the French
in time to *get* their aging tanks (and possibly some air
support) into position. // |
|
| |
Umm...not really. If the Belgians put anything into the air,
a swarm of bf109s would have come screaming out of the
sun to knock it down; remember, this was when the
Luftwaffe still existed. For the same reason, it was very
difficult for the few French forces that were able to
respond to manuever without coming under attack from the
sky. |
|
| |
Consider also that the Belgians were taken by surprise as
well, and it is standard practice for the first wave of any
invasion force to sever communication lines. Go read
yourself a history book there, sonny. |
|
| |
// The problem was they fell for a German feint that
should have been obvious // |
|
| |
That is true, but it wasn't their fault. They are French,
after all |
|
| |
// Huns on horseback were faster // |
|
| |
But an Uhlan is vulnerable to an infantryman
with a rifle; a tank, even a Panzer II, isn't. The
horse can be stopped by a few strands of
barbed wire; the tank keeps going. |
|
| |
Even the original British Mk.I was
extraordinarily successful at Cambrai, despite
its 4 mph top speed. |
|
| |
The french thought of the tank as a support
weapon for infantry, as per WW I. The
Germans thought of infantry as a support and
adjunct to tanks, hence their development of
mechanised Panzergrenadier units. |
|
| |
I would like it if there was RASSLING!
And as a side note - if you can get one of those Enigma machine there will be no more need for medicated suppostiories. |
|
| |
Ahem - to the idea. General feats of strength etc would be fine for various servicemen and I think would provide some bragging points for countries with fit and athletic armies who would like to compete with the US but without the astral vision goggles and sentient bullets that go around corners. For example there could be RASSLING! Yay Bulgaria! |
|
| |
But as re pure strategery, contests could pit armchair strategists vs army, academy, industry and others - not contests involving a bunch of portly armchairists with paintball guns in the woods, but contests of cunning and creativity - get item A to point B etc. |
|
| |
//machine-guns in the arm rest // |
|
| |
That's only for the Bond Supervillain category. |
|
| |
// or whether causing an enemy combatant to spill their cognac is a
war crime. // |
|
| |
No, but spilling Single Malt Whisky is. |
|
| |