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

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
The whole "IS THIS THE END OF THE TANK" thing really reminds me of all those guys in the interwar period advocating for no more fighter planes, only bombers.
 
WelperHelper99 said:
This is understated. ECM is only getting better. All you need to do is cut that drone's control feed and it's out of the fight. A light tank has no such issues. You have to physically disable it. Even if you have the capability, it's not as easy as pointing a strong signal at a quad copter. It might survive your RPG. Then it hits you with a 105mm HE round and you're fucking dead.
Click to expand...
And when you have a purpose built drone controlled with an AI that can identify friend or foe and execute an attack with zero input?

ECM will certainly be an issue to deal with, but its no different than ECM now. Not like modern systems arent just as networked as any drone would be. If your drone can be blinded or downed with ECM, so can your link16 or bfts keeping your ground and air forces networked.
Sleazy Car Salesman said:
The whole "IS THIS THE END OF THE TANK" thing really reminds me of all those guys in the interwar period advocating for no more fighter planes, only bombers.
Click to expand...
IMO direct support aircraft are obsolete against a modern air defense manned by competent crews. Even stealth craft are gonna have a hard time in a world of endless drones with quality thermal and other sensors swarming every square inch of the sky.

Were really at an inflection point in warfare. This is the eve of WW1 and were watching the use of machine guns and artillery in the Boer war and the crusty old fucks in charge cant begin to comprehend what theyre seeing or the implications of it.
 
a video going over the pros and cons of the major arms dealers in the world; was a neat little watch. I think this is appropriate for this thread?
 
Sleazy Car Salesman said:
The whole "IS THIS THE END OF THE TANK" thing really reminds me of all those guys in the interwar period advocating for no more fighter planes, only bombers.
Click to expand...
Which makes sense in context given that radar wasn't invented and without OTH capabilities and the performance of then-modern planes interception was deemed too difficult of a task, made even worse by the fact that at altitude bombers were faster and more manuverable than fighters.

Most air theorists were retarded though.
 
Last edited:
74164978231 said:
And when you have a purpose built drone controlled with an AI that can identify friend or foe and execute an attack with zero input?

ECM will certainly be an issue to deal with, but its no different than ECM now. Not like modern systems arent just as networked as any drone would be. If your drone can be blinded or downed with ECM, so can your link16 or bfts keeping your ground and air forces networked.
Click to expand...
Computers autonomous or not have weaknesses of their own. They can be tricked and fooled in ways a human can't. A human can point that 105 mm tank gun, pull trigger, boom, target dead, because he isn't fooled by ECM decoys. Also a 105mm shell, this:
e63ff7b042510b29033998d2f90946b6165ff74e.jpeg
Is a far beefier payload than a quad copter can carry. It also comes in many flavors for any job. HEAT, APFSDS, HE, HESH, smoke, and many more. Direct fire will never be obsolete.

Also the Booker is immune to a 12 gauge shotgun. A quadcopter isn't. In fact the Booker has a 50 cal M2 machine gun up top for AA work if need be, so that's a direct counter to the drone issue, 50 BMG:
lVRy4IvNI-3lCoo9dEx95DsUtqsgdhoLagaPsd55a0w.jpg
Tends to vaporize small air targets and even kill big ones.
 

I like that Russia has started hiring Public lobby War Thunder players to drive their IFVs
 
TiggerNits said:
Also, Barrett has started making fucking Bolters
View attachment 6534637
Click to expand...
Isn't that some 30mm monster can launcher basically?
Hillary Clinton's Ass said:
View attachment 6534734
Click to expand...
The Sheridan was a unloved beast with a 152mm HE spam launcher. Sigh. Also had beehive rounds.
----
I like the OSA
ParkPatriot2015part8-28 (1).jpg
Gecko_IRL.jpg
And it's missile:
1280px-Osa-AKM_9M33M3 (1).jpg
Been used by the East and West at this point. Originally a NAVAL system in response to the US Mauler program, example here:
SA-N-4.jpg
It's the circular launcher. But yeah. They took a naval SAM, strapped it to a amphibious hull, gave it a radar, and you had a short range, command guidance, ECM resistant system. Main con is that it's pretty short range, only 15km with a max altitude of 12km or 39,000 feet. That said it has a boat load of kills under its belt.

And its everywhere. Russia and eastern countries use it, NATO uses it, the OSA just works.
 
TiggerNits said:
VTOL is a tremendous waste and serves no genuine purpose in fixed wing operations. It was only useful once (the Falklands) and it only succeeded because Argentinas air force was retarded in every meaningful way so RAF and RN harriers with almost zero useful ordinance and next to nothing in fuel for loiter were able to hold off an entire wing of morons trying to charge them whenever the weather was nice.

The USMC saw this and totally felt validated in trying to continue the battle of Wake Island 40 years after the point, despite the Harrier, as it stands today, being less effective than the A4Ms they replaced at CAS and force projection. The limitations VTOL puts on both weapon and fuel capacity is truly staggering, even USAF TACP boys bitch about harriers in the stack because they only get two runs, max and maybe 20 minutes in station before needing to hit the tanker. They lack the precision of the Apache and Cobra, the capacity of the A10, the speed of the Viper and at the end of the day, it takes 4 harriers to provide the capability one strike eagle brings to a mission.

And I'm saying this as someone who used to fly the damn things for a bit, the Harrier is a funding albatross and an outright gift on the tax payer
Click to expand...
OK, flynigger. Explain this:
mgs2_harrier-boss-fight-2.jpg
 
Sleazy Car Salesman said:
The whole "IS THIS THE END OF THE TANK" thing really reminds me of all those guys in the interwar period advocating for no more fighter planes, only bombers.
Click to expand...
Every 5 years there is a new one. I'm old enough to remember mil theorists claiming we were at the end of the artillery battery being operationally useful. Prior to Ukraine you had someone writing a white paper claiming modern militaries don't need infantry anymore, and politicians were starting to run with it.

Every time someone claims a combat platform is obsolete, is right at the moment someone makes a better one, or finds a new and interesting way to use it.
 
OutInTheRain said:
Every 5 years there is a new one. I'm old enough to remember mil theorists claiming we were at the end of the artillery battery being operationally useful. Prior to Ukraine you had someone writing a white paper claiming modern militaries don't need infantry anymore, and politicians were starting to run with it.

Every time someone claims a combat platform is obsolete, is right at the moment someone makes a better one, or finds a new and interesting way to use it.
Click to expand...
Speaking which, the only takeaway/conclusion that people should take from the Russian-Ukraine war is: Revive the arms industry, build more arms manufacturing plants, increase production of material. More shells, tanks, mortar rounds, SHORAD, missiles. Just look at the immense amount of equipment expenditure by both sides, it is crazy.
 
OutInTheRain said:
Every 5 years there is a new one. I'm old enough to remember mil theorists claiming we were at the end of the artillery battery being operationally useful. Prior to Ukraine you had someone writing a white paper claiming modern militaries don't need infantry anymore, and politicians were starting to run with it.

Every time someone claims a combat platform is obsolete, is right at the moment someone makes a better one, or finds a new and interesting way to use it.
Click to expand...
The only way to actually find out who was right and who was smoking crack is, unfortunately, to actually have a war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom