Foxholes

>>33954587
>What kind of situation will a defensive fighting foxhole be tactically viable in a modern warfare context?

The kind where someone is firing rounds at your face.

Digging your own grave.

>>33954587
Ukraine apparently

>>33954587
When you have to stay somewhere for a little bit, but you don't wanna get shot.

Any situation where the enemy has firearms and you don't have the numbers and surprise to immediately overwhelm them

In other words every situation besides conducting raids and patrols against disorganized guerrillas.

>>33954626
Isn't movement and mobility more important in modern warfare? Trench warfare is obsolete for a reason.

>>33954665
>trench warfare is obsolete
I will fight you

>>33954665
You're just digging temporary defense anon not building a house to live in

File: in_thefoxhole.jpeg.size.custom.crop.1086x707.jpg (123KB, 1086x707px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1086x707px

>>33954665
>>33954587

>believing the fast wars meme.
conventional fast paced maneuver warfare between conventional armies is the least likely form of conflict to occur in the present day for a variety of reasons which should be pretty obvious, instead bogged down unconventional wars have established themselves as the norm, so hunkering up somewhere to reduce your chances of not getting shot to pieces or blown up is also likely to remain relevant for the foreseeable future.

tl;dr stop playing ARMA and wargame so much

>>33954701
>>33954800
I can imagine digging a network of foxholes as a temporary base of operations, a secure foothold near enemy territory. But you can still get airstriked or bombarded. Shell scrapes are fine I guess, takes only a few minutes to dig.

File: Grenade sumps.jpg (12KB, 236x157px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 236x157px

What are your chances of getting killed or fucked up after kicking a thrown grenade into a grenade sump? How deep should they be to be effective?

>>33954800
>for a variety of reasons which should be pretty obvious

Please explain and elaborate further. If it were that obvious; I wouldn't be asking this. Maybe i'm just retarded; if so, pls no bully.

>>33954935
>too costly in men and materials for a modern nation to justify to "the public"
>nuclear deterrents mean the majority of nations with the actual resources to conduct a conventional war wouldn't dare engage each-other to begin with
>the cost of a conventional conflict would likely outweigh any benefits of winning it anyway

I mean yeah maybe some shitty third world army like north Korea could get rolled over in the future, but two even slightly matched conventional forces will unlikely engage in any large scale conflict against each other for the foreseeable future for the above mentioned reasons.

>>33954665

>What is sleeping?
>What is storage?
>What is holding an area?
>What is shitting?

>>33954870
>But you can still get airstriked or bombarded.

Like that goes away if you're on the move?

Infantry isn't getting away from artillery. It is now, and will be for a very long time, the deadliest part of conventional warfare.

>>33955224
>I mean yeah maybe some shitty third world army like north Korea could get rolled over in the future, but two even slightly matched conventional forces will unlikely engage in any large scale conflict against each other for the foreseeable future for the above mentioned reasons.

>t. everyone in 1914.

>>33955270
but conventional conflicts were still viable in the eyes of 1914 commanders and politicians. Decisive victories were obtainable, rules of war, insurgents and most importantly public opinion weren't major factors, dedicating the entire countries economy too war was the norm and value for life was nothing back then, these days 30 marines get blown up and its a national disaster.
>inb4 war, war never changes
yes it does and the current environment weighs very heavily against all out conventional war compared to the 1900's

>>33954913
As deep as you have time to dig it. I think we had to make them like 40cm deep back in basic.

I'm just a reservist but digging a foxhole only takes a few hours with two guys alternating shifts.
If you plan on dicking around for a week its a lot better than standing in the open. With a few additional hours you can have cover from arty and shit pits, whatever you want.
Unless you're only in the location for a day or two you may as well entrench a bit.

>>33954800
>that mg42

Jelly

>>33954587
We dug fox holes and trenches in 2004 in Iraq...when you have absolutely no cover or barricades, digging holes still do the trick.

>>33955978
Oh, and to make it even more miserable, we had to wear full MOPP because of the "WMD's"

>>33954913

If you dug it deep enough, you should be alright, cept maybe your eardrums. Grenades don't have a whole lot of explosive, it's the shrapnel that kills

>>33954587
Tanks,artillery ect.

File: 3048872E-C278-429A-9E84-A428A85D5C50_cx0_cy2_cw0_w1023_r1_s.jpg (113KB, 1023x575px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 1023x575px

>>33954665
>Trench warfare is obsolete for a reason.
why dont you stop posting for a while. you're embarrassing yourself.

>>33954665
> what is a harbour area/PB/FOB
Did you train hard to become this retarded?

File: forest-brothers-hideout.jpg (62KB, 550x412px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 550x412px

How detectable are things like underground dug out bunkers and stuff? Do militaries use technology like ground-penetrating radar to locate insurgents much, and is it easy to camouflage against technological surveillance?

It got me thinking from another thread about the underground "forest brother" hideouts around the Baltics, I wonder if that would still be practical for rebel groups, or if you'd get found in approximately five minutes because of modern surveillance techniques.

>>33956135

They're pretty hard to find. GPR doesn't really penetrate more than a foot or so into the ground under good conditions. Best way to find em is to see someone go in or out of one (drone, satellite, eyeball, whatever)

t. Former combat engineer

>>33956172
What about the openings? I assume a tunnel straight down wouldn't be that good, I'm guessing a fairly short drop down, then a longer tunnel in that's sloped down a bit?

I'd guess rocky areas would also be better. More cover, and would block a lot more surveillance stuff, there'd be more interference and electromagnetic waves can't pass through as easily.

>>33956193

Taliban would use natural caves that they'd dig out a little bit more to suit their purposes, so it really ran the gamut. The opening could just be a crack in the side of a mountain, or a crevasse that's 50 ft wide. The former is better than the latter for obvious reasons.

We've been in Afghanistan so long because they use those damn caves. We could dedicate the entire US military to searching those damn things and after 10 years we'd still only have maybe a 10th of the systems mapped.

File: Capture.png (599KB, 624x726px) Image search: [Google]

599KB, 624x726px

>talking about foxholes
>people immediately think of trenches and underground habitats

Pls, a small foxhole wont take long todig and it makes you harder to detect and works as cover for you. And even a shallow hole is pretty fucking nice if the enemy has capability of coordinating artillery or mortars with their attack..

>>33954587
When you're in a shitty situation. We dug them all the time in Helmand. Of course I was a Marine, so we call them fighting holes instead, who cares, vernacular.

It's to do with how explosions actually happen. They don't go downwards. So your best chance of survival is in your dirt pit if Muhammad & Sons get frisky with mortars.

>>33954587
When your fresh out of the academy platoon commander wants it so.

Keeps the men busy

File: IMG_20161218_083146846.jpg (3MB, 5344x3006px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 5344x3006px

>>33954587
they are great at /k/ meets

Why do Brit's and Canadians dig shell scrapes that turn into trenches? I would think that digging a foxhole is more efficient.

File: 20161217_172112.jpg (4MB, 5312x2988px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 5312x2988px

>>33956634
snuggle hole best hole

>>33954913
What are your chances of actually having a grenade thrown at you in modern warfare?

>>33956677
What happens in the /k/hole STAYS in the /k/hole. Don't ask, don't yell.

File: cuddle.jpg (845KB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

845KB, 2560x1440px

>>33956686


:^)

>>33954587
Hasty defense

what else are you going to do when you stop for the day and you dont have a fob to play on

>>33955325
>40cm to inches = 15.748
Why? If youre in basic wouldn't they want you getting used to digging more?

File: grenade-fail.gif (2MB, 324x237px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 324x237px

>>33954913

>>33956681
In a war against mudslimes? Pretty likely.

File: 129986103695.gif (3MB, 395x298px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 395x298px

>>33958310

>>33954587
make sure you have an anti-grenade net all around your foxhole!!

>>33956075
>implying the entire ukrainian military is not obsolete as nine fucks.

>>33954587
A war that doesn't include air support, like the situation in Ukraine.

>>33956681
happens all the time in the middle east. The canadian ginger /k/ommando who went and fought with the kurds said that during the last combat he saw the isis guys crawled along a riverbed to the kurdish camp and threw dozens of russian handgrenades into their camp.

pre-isis they used to give handgrenades to kids and have them throw them into the gunners hatches of passing convoys.

in every video of isis attacking a position you hear and see grenades being used.

>>33954611
Hey that commercial was really well shot

File: 1493733211150.jpg (132KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 1080x1080px

>>33958713

your right there /k/ommrad

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzs_dYE6MjA

>>33956836
40cm in addition to the 1- 1 1/2m you already had to dig

I just spent some time in a foreign conflict and slept in foxholes and fighting positions constantly.

>>33954587
Foxhole and trench became a problem because of gas warfare and tanks.

Foxholes are still okay in modern warfare because of masks and with modifications it can protect from nuclear fallout. But if the enemy can figure out your location from far away, you are going to have a bad time.

>>33954587
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b60OZhrTB6o

Name a better entrenching tool than the Chinese Army.
>Protip you can't

>>33959687

Slav Saperka is best:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOaEjJz-6jg
>>33959281