Military Equipment Sperging Thread - The Tiger II is a better tank than the M1 Abrams edition

[Sleazy Car Salesman]

The Bradley did really well in the Gulf War too.

Almost everything did really well in the Gulf War. Assuming it was American.

 

[OutInTheRain]

Conventional tube artillery is obsolete in the era of drones. Its just theres a lot of it around and large industrial bases built up to support it. Then of course the institutional inertia to actually adopt the better weapon system.

I don't think so, the ability to say "fuck you and your gridsquare." from 30km away will never go out of style. I also think trying to go convince a groundpounder to attack a place without it being softened up with several hours of explosions is not going to go over well. I do however believe that tactics will have to change and how they defend those areas will need to be reviewed.

However, I am still going to bring up your point to the next arty guy I meet and watch him turn purple. There is not a component of combat arms more prideful with less reason to be than the artillery, and one of the few great joys in life is royally pissing them off.

 

[The Grognard]

Almost everything did really well in the Gulf War. Assuming it was American.

The issue with Desert Storm is that it brought on decades of complacence and overconfidence on one's invincibility. If anything, the party who learned most from it would be PRC because they went on a long and hard modernization program after being given a demonstration of peak American power.

I don't think so, the ability to say "fuck you and your gridsquare." from 30km away will never go out of style. I also think trying to go convince a groundpounder to attack a place without it being softened up with several hours of explosions is not going to go over well. I do however believe that tactics will have to change and how they defend those areas will need to be reviewed.

However, I am still going to bring up your point to the next arty guy I meet and watch him turn purple. There is not a component of combat arms more prideful with less reason to be than the artillery, and one of the few great joys in life is royally pissing them off.

Ukraine is an artillery fight and anyone who disparages the most effective tool of the whole war is a moron.

 

[Sleazy Car Salesman]

I don't think so, the ability to say "fuck you and your gridsquare." from 30km away will never go out of style. I also think trying to go convince a groundpounder to attack a place without it being softened up with several hours of explosions is not going to go over well. I do however believe that tactics will have to change and how they defend those areas will need to be reviewed.

The other thing tube artillery has that other forms of artillery lacks is sustained fire and endurance. Sure a missile rack can let off more boom more faster but then it has to go somewhere else to reload. Even if the tube artillery needs to shoot and scoot it can do that for longer.

The issue with Desert Storm is that it brought on decades of complacence and overconfidence on one's invincibility. If anything, the party who learned most from it would be PRC because they went on a long and hard modernization program after being given a demonstration of peak American power.

Undoubtedly.

Ukraine is an artillery fight and anyone who disparages the most effective tool of the whole war is a moron.

That guy is generally a moron, he was talking a couple pages ago about how drones are going to eradicate tanks from the battlefield as well. He doesn't seem to understand the limitations of drones or that a military is made of many complimentary parts and that drones are simply another part in a larger machine.

 

[Jewthulhu]

It never should have been changed.

There's a debate whether TNWs are useful, and whether they'd be more useful on defense or offense.

And besides that and the escalation risk, NATO has been (somewhat) confident in its ability to beat back Russia since the 80s. TNWs lost their prominence in NATO planning since then, to the point where the modern US arsenal is entirely strategic. I personally think we should have some sub-strategic weapons around for escalation control, but whatever.

 

[JJLiautaud]

I personally think we should have some sub-strategic weapons around for escalation control, but whatever.

I believe almost all of the US's stockpile are dial-a-yield and can be dialed down to tactical level if wanted.

 

[WelperHelper99]

I believe almost all of the US's stockpile are dial-a-yield and can be dialed down to tactical level if wanted.

Basically yeah. Even the Trident oddly enough has a 5 kiloton warhead option now... for reasons.

 

[JJLiautaud]

Basically yeah. Even the Trident oddly enough has a 5 kiloton warhead option now... for reasons.

the main gravity bomb of the US can be dialed down to .3 KT again for ... reasons

 

[Jewthulhu]

I believe almost all of the US's stockpile are dial-a-yield and can be dialed down to tactical level if wanted.

Maybe I'm just salty Biden canceled the SLCM program.

the main gravity bomb of the US can be dialed down to .3 KT again for ... reasons

A tactical gravity bomb makes sense. As for the SLBMs/ICBMs, it's probably a component of the US' "casualty-limiting" strategy. C3 targets are usually close to cities, so hit them with 5kt rather than 500.

 

[74164978231]

I don't think so, the ability to say "fuck you and your gridsquare." from 30km away will never go out of style. I also think trying to go convince a groundpounder to attack a place without it being softened up with several hours of explosions is not going to go over well. I do however believe that tactics will have to change and how they defend those areas will need to be reviewed.

The other thing tube artillery has that other forms of artillery lacks is sustained fire and endurance. Sure a missile rack can let off more boom more faster but then it has to go somewhere else to reload. Even if the tube artillery needs to shoot and scoot it can do that for longer.

You dont need large volume of sustain fire when you can actually hit what youre wanting to destroy.

WW1 saw the deployment of an unimaginable amount of artillery and firing of god only knows how many rounds. Did artillery win the war? Was it what finally broke either sides warfighting capability? No.

Now 100+ years later weve seen Ukraine and Russia turn eastern Ukraine into a recreation of the Moon. Again ungodly amounts of rounds have been fired and whats the end result? War is still raging hard going on 3 years now with no end in sight.

The goal with artillery is to deliver ordnance on a target. If a more effective way comes along to deliver ordnance on target, why would you not switch to it?

 

[OutInTheRain]

You dont need large volume of sustain fire when you can actually hit what youre wanting to destroy.

WW1 saw the deployment of an unimaginable amount of artillery and firing of god only knows how many rounds. Did artillery win the war? Was it what finally broke either sides warfighting capability? No.

Now 100+ years later weve seen Ukraine and Russia turn eastern Ukraine into a recreation of the Moon. Again ungodly amounts of rounds have been fired and whats the end result? War is still raging hard going on 3 years now with no end in sight.

The goal with artillery is to deliver ordnance on a target. If a more effective way comes along to deliver ordnance on target, why would you not switch to it?

Artillery fire and indirect fire weapons accomplish so much more than just destruction. It serves as area denial, it restricts movement, it destroys morale and is a constant source of casualties. Artillery is also cheap. An arty shell is so much cheaper than precision guided munitions. Furthermore, artillery since the introduction of the cannon has been the most deadly weapon in war. Accounting for around 90% of casualties. Though that number has probably gone down in the last couple of decades with the refocus to fighting goat herders. Artillery probably does account for the lion's share of casualties in Ukraine. So yes it does win wars, for centuries it was the most important piece of equipment for an army outside of the actual boots on the ground.

If a company is hiding in a forest, do you complete an exhaustive amount of ISR and recce to determine their position, which is probably not static, to attempt to hit it with a JDAM. Or do you go "fuck your forest" and flatten it with a couple hours of artillery denying the use of that area and causing casualties. On top of that, using an artillery screen is a much more effective way to cover an advance, keeping the enemy from maneuvering, so your people can get into position. You can't do that with ALCMs or other smart guided munitions, just because there just isn't enough of them.

You are also disregarding that modern artillery, even turn of the previous century artillery is pretty accurate considering the distance the rounds travel. Infantry have been using it for support for decades, usually convening a hasty fire mission to root out some target, rather than risk themselves with an advance under enemy fire.

Industrialized warfare is not a sprint, it isn't a glorious charge and the enemy breaks and everyone goes home by Christmas. It's long, it's muddy, and it takes forever. Part of that is flinging an unholy amount of munitions in the enemies general direction. Desert Storm is the exception, not the rule.

 

[TiggerNits]

Tube arty is literally a case of Occam's razor. It's the easiest, fastest and cheapest way to blow something up over yonder regardless of battlefield capabilities or lack thereof.

Drones are a massive force multiplier, just like aviation is\was for artillery, but it cannot replace it because a steel tube and some premade charges are going to be easier to maintain, and train crews to operate and repair than anything that's gonna have more than 10 moving parts

 

[Hillary Clinton's Ass]

Tube arty is literally a case of Occam's razor. It's the easiest, fastest and cheapest way to blow something up over yonder regardless of battlefield capabilities or lack thereof.

Drones are a massive force multiplier, just like aviation is\was for artillery, but it cannot replace it because a steel tube and some premade charges are going to be easier to maintain, and train crews to operate and repair than anything that's gonna have more than 10 moving parts

Artillery units should have organic ISR drone support.

 

[OutInTheRain]

Artillery units should have organic ISR drone support.

I remember years ago, arty batteries were using early drones as spotters, and to also patrol around the position. The controller was in the back of the LAV. I don't know how effective it was at the time. But I imagine with modern upgrades it would work well.

 

[Sleazy Car Salesman]

WW1 saw the deployment of an unimaginable amount of artillery and firing of god only knows how many rounds. Did artillery win the war? Was it what finally broke either sides warfighting capability? No.

In many ways, yes. It was. The tank gets a lot of the credit but what many people leave out is what proceeded the armored push; the artillery barrage. More specifically a creeping barrage, and in WWII the Soviet deep battle doctrine relied on similar tactics in which artillery would bombard the front in three distinct stages prior to the beginning of the general assault. Artillery is and was plenty accurate even back then the issue was knowing where to point it, that's the best use for a drone.

 

[JJLiautaud]

More specifically a creeping barrage, and in WWII the Soviet deep battle doctrine relied on similar tactics in which artillery would bombard the front in three distinct stages prior to the beginning of the general assault. Artillery is and was plenty accurate even back then the issue was knowing where to point it, that's the best use for a drone.

Or the US doctrine of putting an arty battery in every butterbar's back pocket...

 

[The Foxtrot]

Desert Storm is the exception, not the rule.

More people need to be made to understand this, because every dumbass MURICA FUHK YEA type thinks that's the baseline to judge everything else by. Or WW2.

Or the US doctrine of putting an arty battery in every butterbar's back pocket...
View attachment 6541083View attachment 6541084

So easy to use, even an Enlisted man could be walked through it over the radio. And this absolutely made a difference during WW2, to the point that the Germans flat-out made it a bitching point.

 

[74164978231]

Artillery fire and indirect fire weapons accomplish so much more than just destruction. It serves as area denial, it restricts movement, it destroys morale and is a constant source of casualties. Artillery is also cheap. An arty shell is so much cheaper than precision guided munitions. Furthermore, artillery since the introduction of the cannon has been the most deadly weapon in war. Accounting for around 90% of casualties. Though that number has probably gone down in the last couple of decades with the refocus to fighting goat herders. Artillery probably does account for the lion's share of casualties in Ukraine. So yes it does win wars, for centuries it was the most important piece of equipment for an army outside of the actual boots on the ground.

If a company is hiding in a forest, do you complete an exhaustive amount of ISR and recce to determine their position, which is probably not static, to attempt to hit it with a JDAM. Or do you go "fuck your forest" and flatten it with a couple hours of artillery denying the use of that area and causing casualties. On top of that, using an artillery screen is a much more effective way to cover an advance, keeping the enemy from maneuvering, so your people can get into position. You can't do that with ALCMs or other smart guided munitions, just because there just isn't enough of them.

And a swarm of drones armed with a dozen 155mm equivalents or small diameter bombs cant do that why?

 

[Sleazy Car Salesman]

And a swarm of drones armed with a dozen 155mm equivalents or small diameter bombs cant do that why?

By the time you have a "swarm of drones" each capable of carrying roughly 100 pounds of explosives what you have in reality is an ultralight airplane.

 

[74164978231]

By the time you have a "swarm of drones" each capable of carrying roughly 100 pounds of explosives what you have in reality is an ultralight airplane.

Well yeah but that doesnt mean its not a drone aka cheap(theoritically dont need a highly trained highly fit pilot but gg globohomoindustrialcomplex) easy to maintain and easy to fly.