Most likely military position to survive a war?

[harmonicamoon]

I was in the Army band.

When they didn’t want music, our MOS was ambulance driver.

Fortunately, the officer’s club always wanted to hear some jazz.

Never drove an ambulance.

[Bear_Nenno]

Airborne infantry.

[engineer_comp_geek]

@JakeRS

Mechanics aren’t really a combat position

Say what?

A good friend of mine was a mechanic during the first Gulf War. He was in the same location as all of the front line combat guys before the invasion, and when the first group of tanks and such went up into Kuwait, he was right behind them, fixing anything that broke.

[madmonk28]

@Boyo_Jim

I’ll go with “front line interpreter” if that’s a real job. You get brought in to talk the enemy into surrendering once they are surrounded. And you get a loudspeaker so you don’t even have to show your face.

Man, I know a lot of interpreters, mostly Afghans and Iraqis who worked with US forces and that can be an incredibly dangerous job. For one, you are not just talking to guys who want to surrender, but going in with teams as they kick down doors searching buildings. And if the insurgents find out your name you and your family are in all kinds of danger.

[foolsguinea]

I’d like to go sniper, but I don’t think my hands are steady enough. I suspect I’d probably end up in a tank or other vehicle.

(This question makes me sad.)

[Bear_Nenno]

@engineer_comp_geek

… and when the first group of tanks and such went up into Kuwait, he was right behind them, fixing anything that broke.

You just described a noncombat position.

[Loach]

@RickJay

Well, nothing is a safe bet, but being in the rear with the gear in a conventional war is a WAY safer bet than being an infantryman on the front.

Between D-Day and the surrender of Germany, front line Allied infantry regiments had casualty rates above one hundred percent - that is, the average American, British or Canadian infantryman position was filled by an average of slightly more than two different guys, due to at least the first guy being killed, captured or badly wounded.

The casualty rate for, say, artillerymen (which is a combat role) was assuredly NOT one hundred percent. Now, in that case that might not be a good analogy; Allied artillery overwhelmed German artillery, and was almost always free of threat from aircraft. In an even matchup of two modern states that might not be true. I’d still probably rather be an artilleryman, though.

The artillery game is much different now. If you are in a low intensity conflict with an insurgency you’ll be tucked away somewhere reasonably safe. If you are up against a modern army it depends on how good their radar and counter battery fire is. In Iraq we could drop artillery on where rockets or motars were fired within seconds. That’s way the insurgents started to fire from within neighborhoods and on timers (that often failed).

And I would pick tanker.

[MichaelEmouse]

@Loach

The artillery game is much different now. If you are in a low intensity conflict with an insurgency you’ll be tucked away somewhere reasonably safe. If you are up against a modern army it depends on how good their radar and counter battery fire is. In Iraq we could drop artillery on where rockets or motars were fired within seconds. That’s way the insurgents started to fire from within neighborhoods and on timers (that often failed).

And I would pick tanker.

With two modern-ish militaries, wouldn’t they both do an awful lot of shoot & scoot?
Would you say that tankers have gotten more or less safe in the last 1-2 decades? For what reasons?

[Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor]

Minister of Defense.

[DinoR]

@MichaelEmouse

With two modern-ish militaries, wouldn’t they both do an awful lot of shoot & scoot?

Sure they’d both want to do survivability moves. That takes time where tubes aren’t available to fire which may or may not be acceptable given the mission. Sometimes terrain can constrain selection of firing points available to move between. With counterbattery radar it’s possible for the battery that fires first to have it’s rounds still in the air while fire is coming back their way; the fire mission may well not be over before they get explosive presents.

Would you say that tankers have gotten more or less safe in the last 1-2 decades? For what reasons?

I’d go for a slight loss to the advantage the Abrams used to have in survivability. Lethality, sights, and mission command capability is up with the M1A2SEP. That can help survivability to an extent. Mostly the armor is the same as the M1A1 Heavy Armor variant while threats have improved their capability.

[Loach]

@MichaelEmouse

Would you say that tankers have gotten more or less safe in the last 1-2 decades? For what reasons?

Just like Bear_Nenno I go with what I know.

[MichaelEmouse]

@Loach

Just like Bear_Nenno I go with what I know.

I didn’t ask the question rhetorically; I’m genuinely curious.

@DinoR

Lethality, sights, and mission command capability is up with the M1A2SEP. That can help survivability to an extent. Mostly the armor is the same as the M1A1 Heavy Armor variant while threats have improved their capability.

What have been the major improvements in lethality, sights, mission command? How are anti-armor threats comparatively better?

[DinoR]

@MichaelEmouse

What have been the major improvements in lethality, sights, mission command?

Lethality:

• Fielding of a canister round for the main gun. Think 120mm shotgun shell.
• Fielding of the MPAT (Multi-Purpose Anti-Tank) round for the main gun. It can operate as a HEAT round in ground mode or be switched to Air-mode where it has a proximity fuze for use against helicopters. In addition it has improved graze fusing compared to older HEAT rounds meaning a higher chance of exploding. It also flies a bit faster which helps with long range shots at faster moving targets.
• Fielding of an obstacle reduction round. It’s basically an MPAT, without air mode, but with a hardened steel nose and a slight time delay.
• The sights which I mentioned separately.

Sights:

• CITV (Commander’s Independent Thermal Viewer) It’s a separate sight for the tank commander that allows him to scan separately from the gunner. During engagements the TC can scan while the gunner is servicing the first target. When the gunner is complete the TC can slew the turret to bear on the target he’s tracking in the CITV with a press of a button.
• Next generation thermal sight that has much greater clarity and higher maximum magnification. Since the old system could accurately and effectively engage well past the point where you could see more than “something tiny and hot a long way away” that’s a big deal.

Mission Command:

• I am not going all the way down the rabbit hole on the Inter-Vehicle Information System. There’s a quick overview here. Just a tiny little

How are anti-armor threats comparatively better?

Greater fielding of top attack systems. Improved warheads for a common light AT system, the RPG-7. Relatively few ATGMs still in use that require manual guidance and more that are fire and forget. Greater speed in some of the more modern ATGMs reducing the amount of time to react to launch.