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
74164978231 said:
Man wait til you find out about tube artillery and how inefficient it is.
Click to expand...
Tube artillery is cheap and steady. A drone is cheap, but not steady, especially in EW enviroments where a fire and forget missile like a Javelin would be way more suited. You got a fetish for quadcopters man.
 
In the 1920s, after the development and successful use of combat aircraft, many theorized that wars would be largely fought in the air at the expense of ground and sea forces.

In the 1950s, after the development and successful use of the atomic bomb, many theorized that wars would be largely fought with atomic weapons at the expense of conventional weapons and force structure.

In the 1990s. after the successful use of precision munitions in Iraq, many (especially in the West) theorized that wars would be largely fought by small, nimble forces with precision guided munitions, at the expense of mass.

In the 2020s, after the successful use of cheap drones and FPVs in Ukraine, some theorize that wars will be entirely dominated by cheap drones at the expense of anything with a budget over $100 or whatever.

All of these theories are interesting to talk about in their own right, but my kind of snarky point is that this idea that some new technology is going to completely upend military affairs is nothing new. 90% of the time, the new tech simply finds its own niche and we realize that we still need the shit that it was going to upend.
 
WelperHelper99 said:
Tube artillery is cheap and steady. A drone is cheap, but not steady, especially in EW enviroments where a fire and forget missile like a Javelin would be way more suited. You got a fetish for quadcopters man.
Click to expand...
If anything, modern tube artillery is more powerful than ever thanks to how much faster and more precise modern fire direction is. It also offers a substantially better volume of fire than drones and while some people talk of meme shells like the Excalibur as some silver bullet; The actual strength now is that with current fire direction it is faster and easier to set up fire missions that are more responsive than ever and thus, every salvo can be effective.

Jewthulhu said:
All of these theories are interesting to talk about in their own right, but my kind of snarky point is that this idea that some new technology is going to completely upend military affairs is nothing new. 90% of the time, the new tech simply finds its own niche and we realize that we still need the shit that it was going to upend.
Click to expand...
I'd argue the biggest thing to learn from the current war in Ukraine is to go back to the 19th century and remember what Napoleon Bonaparte said about artillery. It's a war of firepower with both sides employing strategies that discourage mobility. It has shown that you can't disregard the fundamental building blocks of a military-industrial complex like having a domestic vertically integrated supply chain of munitions and a state ready to go into three shifts to ensure whatever the frontline needs, is met regardless of cost.
 
The other thing to keep in mind is that Russia and Ukraine are borderline third world and so judging the future of warfare through this conflict is like taking some French Foreign Legion nigger conflict and declaring that to be the future of warfare.
 
The Grognard said:
If anything, modern tube artillery is more powerful than ever thanks to how much faster and more precise modern fire direction is. It also offers a substantially better volume of fire than drones and while some people talk of meme shells like the Excalibur as some silver bullet; The actual strength now is that with current fire direction it is faster and easier to set up fire missions that are more responsive than ever and thus, every salvo can be effective
Click to expand...
True enough
Sleazy Car Salesman said:
The other thing to keep in mind is that Russia and Ukraine are borderline third world and so judging the future of warfare through this conflict is like taking some French Foreign Legion nigger conflict and declaring that to be the future of warfare.
Click to expand...
They have a lot of equipment to smash against eachother, but actual planning leaves much to be desired. There are also a lack of certain technological elements the US would have in a conflict that neither side of RvU would have, like stealth aircraft for one.
 
WelperHelper99 said:
They have a lot of equipment to smash against eachother, but actual planning leaves much to be desired. There are also a lack of certain technological elements the US would have in a conflict that neither side of RvU would have, like stealth aircraft for one.
Click to expand...
And their replenishment rates are rock bottom, effectively non-existent. This is not an industrialized war.
 
WelperHelper99 said:
They have a lot of equipment to smash against eachother, but actual planning leaves much to be desired. There are also a lack of certain technological elements the US would have in a conflict that neither side of RvU would have, like stealth aircraft for one.
Click to expand...
The conflict in question is still ongoing and the fog of war is thick. However, if there is something that everyone has or should have taken note of:

- Quadcopter drones as a low-level recon tool with FPV role as a secondary function
- Cage armor having to cover all directions
- Mass producible single-use drones as an AD saturation tool with capacity for ground attack as well
- Motorcycles being extremely useful for front line units in modern warfare
- Anti-Aircraft Artillery becoming relevant again as a necessary countermeasure for large scale drone swarms
- Trenchline construction is as relevant now as it was a century ago
- Electronic warfare becoming the next realm where you either are at the top or nowhere
- Retention of deep reserves of vehicles as to ensure that if a conflict lasts longer than expected, you aren't completely fucked
- OSINT not being reliable if not run by proper autists interested in uncomfortable truths
 
Last edited:
The Grognard said:
If anything, modern tube artillery is more powerful than ever thanks to how much faster and more precise modern fire direction is. It also offers a substantially better volume of fire than drones and while some people talk of meme shells like the Excalibur as some silver bullet; The actual strength now is that with current fire direction it is faster and easier to set up fire missions that are more responsive than ever and thus, every salvo can be effective.
Click to expand...
Indeed, modern fire direction + long range howitzers = fantastic and quite precise firepower for far less cost and risk than almost any other method.

Now we just need to bring back cool shit like railway/super guns. Not for any practical reason. Just want them back. Theoretically could be usable in very specific roles, so that's enough justification for me to want a new version of the ol nazi 21 cm K 12 (E). A plastic made in china drone with an RGD-5 taped to it is not quite so inspiring as hucking 107kg shells up to 115km.
 
VF-1S Valkyrie said:
Do you get a kick out of deliberately missing the point, or does it just happen?
Click to expand...
I wonder this line of thinking is what got us the Spear. How inefficient and pointless is it for soldiers to carry around 200+ rounds of 556 when they can fire a flat shooting round using a super higher speed scope that gives you amazing first hit probability?
Jewthulhu said:
All of these theories are interesting to talk about in their own right, but my kind of snarky point is that this idea that some new technology is going to completely upend military affairs is nothing new. 90% of the time, the new tech simply finds its own niche and we realize that we still need the shit that it was going to upend.
Click to expand...
Except this has happened numerous times in warfare.

From the Roman Maniple upending the Greek Phalanx to aircraft carriers obsoleting the battleship. Im by no means saying drones are the new infantry at all. But thinking we can approach warfare as he have for the past 50-60 years s utterly ridiculous and just results in wholesale slaughter of men as we are seeing in Ukraine.
 
Last edited:
74164978231 said:
But thinking we can approach warfare as he have for the past 50-60 years s utterly ridiculous and just results in wholesale slaughter of men as we are seeing in Ukraine.
Click to expand...
Artillery still accounts for at least 80% of battlefield injuries, off the back of drone-based correction that has been a thing for decades. Novel drones are not particularly driving the 'wholesale slaughter of men' in Ukraine, they just freeze offensives while other units do the bulk of the killing.

You keep spewing all this specious retardation, and it falls flat when placed against any sort of reality.
 
Last edited:
The Grognard said:
You may have to remember that a Javelin isn't really designed with mass producability in mind and it would likely cost much less once it gets re-engineered to be made in an assembly line. ATGMs in general can be as cheap as a drone and would have advantages of speed and smaller front profile when it comes to direct conflict. They also work better in heavy EW environments.
Click to expand...
Uhh what?

The USA has made tens of thousands of javelins

WelperHelper99 said:
Tube artillery is cheap and steady. A drone is cheap, but not steady, especially in EW enviroments where a fire and forget missile like a Javelin would be way more suited. You got a fetish for quadcopters man.
Click to expand...
Fiber optic fpv drones are almost totally immune to EW and some have ranges in excess of 30 or even 59 kilometers.

Even the "basic" fiber drones are coming with 10-20 kilometer fiber spools.

Still more expensive than 1-3 artillery shells but they're far more capable in every way except total payload, bulk, and certain maneuvers than radio controlled fpv drones.
The Grognard said:
Quadcopter drones as a low-level recon tool with FPV role as a secondary function
- Cage armor having to cover all directions
- Mass producible single-use drones as an AD saturation tool with capacity for ground attack as well
- Motorcycles being extremely useful for front line units in modern warfare
- Anti-Aircraft Artillery becoming relevant again as a necessary countermeasure for large scale drone swarms
Click to expand...
Also slightly bigger fixed wing drones like Orlan and Supercam. Every artillery brigade or even platoon should have them and they should be easy to launch and recover.

Cager armor.... Kinda. Ukraine is moving to folding canopies and turret only style cages these days and full vehicle setups add weight, bulk, and don't really do a whole lot vs carefully piloted FPV or bomber drones.

AA artillery... Yeah it never should have left
VF-1S Valkyrie said:
Artillery still accounts for at least 80% of battlefield injuries, off the back of drone-based correction that has been a thing for decades. Novel drones are not particularly driving the 'wholesale slaughter of men' in Ukraine, they just freeze offensives while other units do the bulk of the killing.

You keep spewing all this specious retardation, and it falls flat when placed against any sort of reality.
Click to expand...
Yep although in sections of the Ukranian front, artillery is mostly silent as the moment it starts shooting drones start looking for it and once discovered, attack drones head off to kill the gun or it's ammo.

Shoot and scoot is dead in Ukraine at the moment.
 
Falcos_Commisar said:
Uhh what?

The USA has made tens of thousands of javelins
Click to expand...
Just because you make a lot of things, doesn't mean it is necessarily engineered for true mass production.


A truly mass producible item would have as few components as possible hand-fitted or hand-assembled, with emphasis on production scales where tens of thousands would represent a yearly rate, rather than the whole production expected to two and a half thousandish every year.
 
Jewthulhu said:
In the 1920s, after the development and successful use of combat aircraft, many theorized that wars would be largely fought in the air at the expense of ground and sea forces.

In the 1950s, after the development and successful use of the atomic bomb, many theorized that wars would be largely fought with atomic weapons at the expense of conventional weapons and force structure.

In the 1990s. after the successful use of precision munitions in Iraq, many (especially in the West) theorized that wars would be largely fought by small, nimble forces with precision guided munitions, at the expense of mass.

In the 2020s, after the successful use of cheap drones and FPVs in Ukraine, some theorize that wars will be entirely dominated by cheap drones at the expense of anything with a budget over $100 or whatever.

All of these theories are interesting to talk about in their own right, but my kind of snarky point is that this idea that some new technology is going to completely upend military affairs is nothing new. 90% of the time, the new tech simply finds its own niche and we realize that we still need the shit that it was going to upend.
Click to expand...
But we can all unanimously agree that once we got out of the era of swords, there is not a single soul today that would want to be taking a sword to a gunfight, knowing they're always going to lose.
 
Falcos_Commisar said:
Yep although in sections of the Ukranian front, artillery is mostly silent as the moment it starts shooting drones start looking for it and once discovered, attack drones head off to kill the gun or it's ammo
Click to expand...

That doesn't surprise at this point in the war and the level of production available to them. Even frontline combat units haven't had sufficient EW coverage for months now, and 3 years of losses to logistics vehicles mean mobile artillery is harder to resupply than ever, which means ammo needs to be closer to the front and more vulnerable.

I don't think that's a failing of artillery at a doctrinal level as much as it is a confirmation of what most people already knew, that inevitably Ukraine's prospects would become more and more grim if they didn't get enough support to kick the Russians out before attrition ground up their reserves and outpaced production. To say nothing of outpacing 'donations'.

Falcos_Commisar said:
Even the "basic" fiber drones are coming with 10-20 kilometer fiber spools.

Still more expensive than 1-3 artillery shells but they're far more capable in every way except total payload, bulk, and certain maneuvers than radio controlled fpv drones.
Click to expand...

Fiber optics are a novel solution to heavy EW environments but those qualities of bulk, payload, and fine control combined with low cost are much of what make drones attractive over missiles or artillery in the first place. It's ultimately a clever way to cope with a lack of other options.
 
Sleazy Car Salesman said:
And their replenishment rates are rock bottom, effectively non-existent. This is not an industrialized war.
Click to expand...
I hate doubleposting but this is a relevant point to revisit right now; replenishement is clearly insufficient, especially on the Ukrainian side, but it's far from non-existent. Especially for the extremely cost efficient drone systems that are saturating air defenses and stalling manuvers. They can get plenty of drones to attack the enemy with, they can get plenty of assorted vehicles to rotate troops, maintain positions, and make meatgrinder attempts at taking positions with a high rates of failure (again, inevitable Russian advantage here), but nobody has enough of the more expensive shit to gain anything decisive.

Or so it would appear from the high perch of my armchair, kek.
 
Falcos_Commisar said:
Fiber optic fpv drones are almost totally immune to EW and some have ranges in excess of 30 or even 59 kilometers.

Even the "basic" fiber drones are coming with 10-20 kilometer fiber spools.

Still more expensive than 1-3 artillery shells but they're far more capable in every way except total payload, bulk, and certain maneuvers than radio controlled fpv drones.
Click to expand...
You can cut that cable. It can get tangled. Also slow velocity. If you need a hammer, 155 is pretty reliable
 
VF-1S Valkyrie said:
but nobody has enough of the more expensive shit to gain anything decisive.
Click to expand...
That's more or less what I'm talking about. Just about the only things that they can build in numbers are infantry small arms, bullets for said same, and they can IMPORT cheap ass drones en masse. Other than that they're pretty well up Shit Creek.
 
The Grognard said:
Just because you make a lot of things, doesn't mean it is necessarily engineered for true mass production.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=_ZMzEu-ra2U
A truly mass producible item would have as few components as possible hand-fitted or hand-assembled, with emphasis on production scales where tens of thousands would represent a yearly rate, rather than the whole production expected to two and a half thousandish every year.
Click to expand...
The Javelin finished development in the late 1990s aka after the "Peace Dividend".

Post 2003 anti armor missiles were rarely used so a barely active production line was fine.

Now post 2022.... Not so much.

Even then, Ukraine has shown that the Pk of a Javelin is, at the MINIMUM, 90% (note, it might actually be more like 93-95%).... 9/10 Javelins fired will hit their targets.... That is absolutely incredible.

The Javelin was never reengineering with automated production in mind so you see lots of manual steps on its production.

Very few ATGMs are built in an automated manner of I remember correctly and FPV drones/bomber drones certainly aren't.

WelperHelper99 said:
You can cut that cable. It can get tangled. Also slow velocity. If you need a hammer, 155 is pretty reliable
Click to expand...
Yep the cable is it's biggest vulnerability. Cut that and it's useless.

That said, the cable let's it fly low while emitting zero or almost zero radio waves so wireless drone detectors don't work.

They're not faster than any other fpv drone, so they max out at ~50-80kmph flat out or maybe in a dive.
 
JJLiautaud said:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=c3JFO2fRels
Chieftan goes over Drone Warfare he also mentions Bolos in the first 30 seconds which is kino.
Click to expand...
quoting this for sweet sweet visibility (it's excellent)

Back in July, GD got the M1E3 contract


US Army is looking for a solid 10 ton weight drop vs the M1A2 SeP v3 (finally)

Israel has deployed the Iron Beam family of laser weapons https://www.army-technology.com/new...w-iron-beam-laser-air-defence-system/?cf-view

Israel also wants to buy $6.4 billion in sweet sweet US weapons (AH-64Es and up to 3,200 AFVs)


The Chinese J-20 has hit or surpassed 300 airframes (note that Chinese plane spotters and analysts say that the first ~60 were powered by Russian engines and should be considered LRIP / testing models while the ~240 after that are the FOC models)



Indonesia wants to drop $450 million on a 40 year old white ele.... I mean Certified Pre-Owned Italian Helicopter carrier, the Giuseppe Garibaldi



In more drone news, the US and Brits tested a big quadcopter for resupply in S. Korea


The US Army is getting over 5,000 of these DJI-class drones from Redcat (already had some from Skydio, the X-10D)



Next size up is the C-100 (entering service) https://defence-blog.com/u-s-army-fields-new-tactical-drone-at-fort-hood/

The US Army is strapping claymores to drones


Please note the retarded OSINT types featured in the article who think the US military took 3 years to drop a grenade from a drone and whining that the drone is ~$15,000..... they don't understand that it's not Chinese trash and has radio and video feed encryption and has to meet stated performance specs in adverse conditions AND is made in the USA....

Hell, the Ukrainians even says it takes a few grand to get a Chinese drone from factory new to actually useful
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom