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

[The Grognard]

>launch the likely bow heavy glass cannon sideways
What were they thinking?

I suspect they did the calculations correctly, but machinery that's meant to aid the launch at the stern failed for whatever reason.

 

[Falcos_Commisar]

Fascinating video on Russian drones from a "soft" propoganda channel.

https://youtu.be/RmfNUM2CbbM?si=Tn_MZ1LfaaN0lf0u

Look at the sizes of the drones on this video

Funny how both sides of the largest and most sophisticated drone war in history are still using guided bombs and expensive long range missiles everywhere they can, if this is truly the case. That kind of hilariously overstated opinion is what those same generals use as a strawman to defend the doctrines that actually need changing. They circulate this shit in their heads as what proponents of this drone revolution coming from the ground floor of current drone operations actually think, and they're lying to themselves for it because nobody with any idea whats going on actually thinks that way.

The drone takeover is inevitable but JDAMs and the like still aren't going anywhere.

The VAST majority of drones top out at ~10kg of payload so it would take 10+ of the bigger ones to have the same destructive power as ONE 250LB bomb.

The insane overhyping of flying grenades/60mm mortar shells is hilarious tbh.

What is essentially Iran Iraq war 2022 edition is why the drones are so common/effective.

Neither side can get operational surprise, it's usually slow moving trench warfare and small unit action, so of course a flying grenade that moves along at 20-50mph that can retarget and carefully pick targets is going to cause the most KiA/WiA (as most troops head to the front on FOOT or in unarmored vehicles.

Meanwhile in the India-Pakistan flare up 2025 edition.... The whole thing didn't last long enough for massive trench lines to form so the drones used were loitering munitions, recon drones, and a few suicide drones.

 

[74164978231]

Funny how both sides of the largest and most sophisticated drone war in history are still using guided bombs and expensive long range missiles everywhere they can, if this is truly the case. That kind of hilariously overstated opinion is what those same generals use as a strawman to defend the doctrines that actually need changing. They circulate this shit in their heads as what proponents of this drone revolution coming from the ground floor of current drone operations actually think, and they're lying to themselves for it because nobody with any idea whats going on actually thinks that way.

This has played out before, the MIC focusing on out dated tech while some new tech just on the horizon comes into utterly supersede the out dated tech.

Its called WW2 and the battleship. Both the US and Japan heavily invested in battleships going into WW2 only to see battleships do jack shit in the pacific besides make juicy targets, at least for the US Navy.

The drone takeover is inevitable but JDAMs and the like still aren't going anywhere.

Oh im not saying drones shouldnt be dropping heavy ordnance or large drones shouldnt exist.

Meanwhile in the India-Pakistan flare up 2025 edition.... The whole thing didn't last long enough for massive trench lines to form so the drones used were loitering munitions, recon drones, and a few suicide drones.

I dont think its possible for them to form. IMO the whole reason that conflict hasnt escalated beyond simple border skirmishes and arty duels is because theyre retards who cant actually wage war. Projecting power outside your borders, combined arms operations takes some serious intelligence and logistical capability.

Having your soldiers shoot at other soldiers across the border? Any 75iq pajeet can do that.

 

[Fatsuit Shinji]

>launch the likely bow heavy glass cannon sideways
What were they thinking?

Side launching is common practice when the shipyards are up river instead of along the coast.

Its called WW2 and the battleship. Both the US and Japan heavily invested in battleships going into WW2 only to see battleships do jack shit in the pacific besides make juicy targets, at least for the US Navy.

Both United States and Japan heavily invested more into carriers post WWI. Hangup on the carriers was them and everyone else capable of building them initially didn't know quite how to use them and in what role(s). Wouldn't be until mid-WWII when it was completely figured out. Wouldn't be until decades after WWII when carrier aircraft were capable of day and night all weather operations. Something the larger cruisers and battleships aren't as effected by.
For the Pacific it is a case of very target poor environment for the U.S. Navy and allies surface combatants.

 

[VF-1J Armored Valkyrie]

This has played out before, the MIC focusing on out dated tech while some new tech just on the horizon comes into utterly supersede the out dated tech.

Its called WW2 and the battleship. Both the US and Japan heavily invested in battleships going into WW2 only to see battleships do jack shit in the pacific besides make juicy targets, at least for the US Navy.

Oh im not saying drones shouldnt be dropping heavy ordnance or large drones shouldnt exist.

Drones completely replacing manned human fighters is not anywhere near the realm of feasibility. It could be a realistic conversation in 30 years, 50 years, could be 100, or never. Sorry, just a completely unserious take that literally nobody on earth is talling about fulfilling right now.

 

[74164978231]

Drones completely replacing manned human fighters is not anywhere near the realm of feasibility. It could be a realistic conversation in 30 years, 50 years, could be 100, or never. Sorry, just a completely unserious take that literally nobody on earth is talling about fulfilling right now.

Well the zippersuited sungods are certainly going to take offense to their illustrious positions being challenged.

But why is far fetched? 1939 the battleship was king. After 1945 not a single one was ever built. Aircraft carriers very quickly replaced them as the center piece of naval firepower and force projection.

 

[VF-1J Armored Valkyrie]

Well the zippersuited sungods are certainly going to take offense to their illustrious positions being challenged.

But why is far fetched? 1939 the battleship was king. After 1945 not a single one was ever built. Aircraft carriers very quickly replaced them as the center piece of naval firepower and force projection.

Because of the current state of UAVs that approach the performance of manned fighters; they are all conservative platforms with conservative capabilities and they are all extremely experimental. They are trying to make drones that can conduct the simplest of manned fighter ops, usually in a wingman setting with a manned pilot in the loop, and they haven't even managed to refine that to operational standards yet.

There's going to eventually be a transition into more and more unmanned technology even in high tech realms like large aircraft, but the idea of a fully unmanmed force is still laughably nebulous.

 

[Foltest]

I don’t know why, but when it comes to “modern” body armour, I have a soft spot for Pagst helmet (yes, I know it is from the early 80).
Thry are just neat.

 

[74164978231]

Because of the current state of UAVs that approach the performance of manned fighters; they are all conservative platforms with conservative capabilities and they are all extremely experimental. They are trying to make drones that can conduct the simplest of manned fighter ops, usually in a wingman setting with a manned pilot in the loop, and they haven't even managed to refine that to operational standards yet.

There's going to eventually be a transition into more and more unmanned technology even in high tech realms like large aircraft, but the idea of a fully unmanmed force is still laughably nebulous.

Manned fighter ops? What manned fighter ops have we seen in Ukraine? What manned fighter ops did we see a few weeks ago in India/Pakistan? In both instances fixed wing has spent 95% of the time simply launching ordnance as far behind friendly lines as possible.

Even ignoring how capable unmanned craft are atm, modern air defense networks by themselves mean manned combat aircraft is quickly approaching obsolesces.

 

[VF-1J Armored Valkyrie]

Manned fighter ops? What manned fighter ops have we seen in Ukraine? What manned fighter ops did we see a few weeks ago in India/Pakistan? In both instances fixed wing has spent 95% of the time simply launching ordnance as far behind friendly lines as possible.

Even ignoring how capable unmanned craft are atm, modern air defense networks by themselves mean manned combat aircraft is quickly approaching obsolesces.

They're still toss bombing with SDBs and JDAM-ERs every week. Even then, you would be mistaken to think that the movements of the starved Ukraine war are an indication of current technology; it's not like Ukraine has all the newest MALD variants and AARGM-ER to make large dynamic air campaigns. It's a joke to compare that to even the earliest months of the war.

You seem like you just aren't really paying attention much.

 

[74164978231]

They're still toss bombing with SDBs and JDAM-ERs every week. Even then, you would be mistaken to think that the movements of the starved Ukraine war are an indication of current technology; it's not like Ukraine has all the newest MALD variants and AARGM-ER to make large dynamic air campaigns. It's a joke to compare that to even the earliest months of the war.

You seem like you just aren't really paying attention much.

Why would you need a sophisticated high performance aircraft to launch SDBs from behind friendly lines?

I think more to the point is look at all those strikes Ukraine has made deep into Russian territory(some 500km+). All by of them by drones. Drones giving Ukraine the same capability the US has with billion dollar B2s.

 

[Sleazy Car Salesman]

Both United States and Japan heavily invested more into carriers post WWI. Hangup on the carriers was them and everyone else capable of building them initially didn't know quite how to use them and in what role(s). Wouldn't be until mid-WWII when it was completely figured out. Wouldn't be until decades after WWII when carrier aircraft were capable of day and night all weather operations. Something the larger cruisers and battleships aren't as effected by.
For the Pacific it is a case of very target poor environment for the U.S. Navy and allies surface combatants.

Plus keep in mind that in both the Pacific and the Atlantic there were still multiple surface actions for which CVs were totally useless and without those surface ships (including BBs) the battle would have been lost. CVs were NOT the queens of the ocean until well after WWII when they were capable of night action and action in heavy weather.

Hell even in WWII itself CVs were only really great in the PTO largely due to the massive operational distances and lack of any real land bases. In Europe CVs were effectively a total non-factor even for the Brits and Americans who actually had them.

 

[WelperHelper99]

I dont see it. The US military is still treating the application of drones like a piloting an F-16 thats going to drop a JDAM. Instead of going hey I have this weapon system what new doctrine can I create because of it, its how can I fit this weapon system in current doctrine? The MIC still refuses to accept even the dumbest cavedwelling retard has the exact same firepower capability as the US with its hundred billions of dollars invested in manned aircraft flown by highly trained skilled pilots dropping gps guided munitions called in by highly trained FACs.

Call me when were building drone factories capable producing hundreds of the things a day and giving tactical control to the squad level. Its going to take a lot of dead US soldiers to over come the intertia of the past 70 years of US military doctrine. But hey what do the Generals in charge care? They wont be the ones being blown into chunks in crisp 4k resolution.

Drones will never replace Jets and JDAMS as much as SciFi authors have a raging hardon for the quadcopter doohikies. They are a tool in the arsenal that still can't beat a GPS guided 2000 pound bomb delivered by a Mach 2.5 F-15E Strike Eagle.

 

[VF-1J Armored Valkyrie]

Why would you need a sophisticated high performance aircraft to launch SDBs from behind friendly lines?

Drones with real payload can't tangle with R-77s yet. Again, this is going back to actual drone aircraft programs like XQ-28, which are just barely ready to be tested for roles like basic strike missions, even when controlled directly by a manned aircraft. Toss bombing with glide bombs has a fraction of the range of high altitude release, it isn't the kind of safe and cushy standoff attack you're describing.

I think more to the point is look at all those strikes Ukraine has made deep into Russian territory(some 500km+). All of them by drones. Drones giving Ukraine the same capability the US has with B2s.

It isn't even close to the same capability. It's such an insane comparison that it makes one question whether you're just that dumb or just trolling. Even the drip feed of western LO cruise missiles has had such an outsized impact at such a higher level of efficiency than either side's attack drones, the idea that those same attack drones are equivalent to a B2 attack makes you sound like the lowest level of /k/ shitposting.

It would be the same to suggest that Ukraine's domestic drones are the same capability as Tu-160 attacks with Kh-101s; blatant and utter falsehood.

 

[WelperHelper99]

t isn't even close to the same capability. It's such an insane comparison that it makes one question whether you're just that dumb or just trolling. Even the drip feed of western LO cruise missiles has had such an outsized impact at such a higher level of efficiency of either side's attack drones, the idea that those same attack drones are equivalent to a B2 attack makes you sound like the lowest level of /k/ shitposting.

The Cruise Missile still hasn't been matched in raw efficiency when spammed from a bomber. Doubly effective when carrrying cluster muntions, which are like a bunch of unguided drone munitions released at the same time. Triple efficient if its a B52 releasing it's full compliment of 20 nuclear armed JSOW's.

 

[VF-1J Armored Valkyrie]

The Cruise Missile still hasn't been matched in raw efficiency when spammed from a bomber. Doubly effective when carrrying cluster muntions, which are like a bunch of unguided drone munitions released at the same time. Triple efficient if its a B52 releasing it's full compliment of 20 nuclear armed JSOW's.

People don't realize how many drones are lost to make the nice telegram clips, both FPVs and bigger attack drones. It's a ton. That's why they still use a mix of weapons. Back when they had a lot of SCALP/Storm Shadow and ATACMS, they were saturating targets with drones and timing the more sophisticated missiles to show up during the drone attack, and that was extremely effective. The Russians still do that when they get new cruise missiles.

It's just the jump from that to 'drones can fully replace high end planes and missiles in the immediate future' that's really nuts.

 

[The Grognard]

People don't realize how many drones are lost to make the nice telegram clips, both FPVs and bigger attack drones. It's a ton. That's why they still use a mix of weapons. Back when they had a lot of SCALP/Storm Shadow and ATACMS, they were saturating targets with drones and timing the more sophisticated missiles to show up during the drone attack, and that was extremely effective. The Russians still do that when they get new cruise missiles.

It's just the jump from that to 'drones can fully replace high end planes and missiles in the immediate future' that's really nuts.

Don't forget that NAFO in particular likes to embellish prisoner execution drone videos as something that just proves how effective drones are.

 

[WelperHelper99]

People don't realize how many drones are lost to make the nice telegram clips, both FPVs and bigger attack drones. It's a ton. That's why they still use a mix of weapons. Back when they had a lot of SCALP/Storm Shadow and ATACMS, they were saturating targets with drones and timing the more sophisticated missiles to show up during the drone attack, and that was extremely effective. The Russians still do that when they get new cruise missiles.

It's just the jump from that to 'drones can fully replace high end planes and missiles in the immediate future' that's really nuts.

They are quad copters that sometimes are wire controled for fucks sake. A lot are consumer grade that have been hillbilly rigged into a mini bomber/ suicide drone. Most were never meant to be a fucking weapon. It's like weaponizing a tractor. Sure i can strap two M240 Bravos onto a tractor and maybe a armored Cab. It proably will work as a little kill truck. Its still a fucking tractor with all the limitations of a tractor. That is where we are in drone development. There are some purpose built systems, but not a lot. The drones currently are small and weak or big, slow, and expensive.

 

[Sleazy Car Salesman]

Drones aren't all that different to counter than traditional aircraft anyways.

Russian anti-drone system “Pine Tree” which locks onto the drone, likely using its frequency before guiding itself to the target and colliding with it.

 

[Fatsuit Shinji]

Plus keep in mind that in both the Pacific and the Atlantic there were still multiple surface actions for which CVs were totally useless and without those surface ships (including BBs) the battle would have been lost. CVs were NOT the queens of the ocean until well after WWII when they were capable of night action and action in heavy weather.

Agree, battleships, heavy and light cruisers were pivotal in providing escort protection for the carriers against surface and air attackers. The number disparity between USN battleships and IJN battleships was such the Standards alone even without Arizona and Oklahoma barely outnumbered all the IJN battleships in service in WWII. And again with just the USN fast battleships (South Carolinas, North Dakotas and Iowas) against the IJN roster. All that without needing the USN's two oldest super dreadnoughts New York and Texas and dreadnought Arkansas to stack the deck even higher.

CVs were NOT the queens of the ocean until well after WWII when they were capable of night action and action in heavy weather.

Even now heavy weather will ground all flight operations. Battleships were mostly retired right after WWII on the account they're just too expensive in $$$ and manpower to keep in service. In addition to most of them were too worn out or had significant issues as in the North Dakotas to keep in service for long.

Hell even in WWII itself CVs were only really great in the PTO largely due to the massive operational distances and lack of any real land bases.

USAAF had land bases and airstrips everywhere in the Pacific for their fighters, medium bombers and most importantly their heavy bombers. The one of the main points to the island hopping campaign was to get those heavy bombers in range to the Japanese home islands, and them being able to return back to base.

In Europe CVs were effectively a total non-factor even for the Brits and Americans who actually had them.

Maybe toward the end of the ETO but earlier in the ETO and MTO, fleet carriers were in play for significant operations up to Operation Overlord. As the Allies were taking absolutely no chances on letting the Germans get a drop on the landing fleet coming to shore.