|
I'll preface this with this:quote:Okay I have to ask, what's with the US-centric view? Discussing/arguing/writing on stuff like this (future warfare concepts) is what I do for a living, and I'm an American, so that's the perspective everything I say is coming from. I should also add that I'm generally talking about periods 2020+, if that changes anything. I also spend a LOT of time arguing this stuff with my maneuver brethren so the tank debate is one I’ve engaged in pretty regularly. Koesj posted:When looking back at certain situations in Iraq, or how the Syrian Army operates in places like Jobar right now (well documented by ANNA News), would you go as far as saying tanks aren't efficient at all in a closer or more urban battlefield, against non-uniformed opponents? It depends what you mean by "effective". If it is acceptable for your force to wreck streets and infrastructure, blow all kinds of things up unnecessarily, kill lots of noncombatants (if they're in the area), and eventually hold terrain that is a smoking hole, then yes, MBT's have utility. If you want to apply discrete, scalable effects, minimize collateral damage, minimize impact to infrastructure, etc, not to mention saving thousands of tons in supply movement, then lighter options are preferable. Note: this wasn’t meant to be glib, there certainly are times when wrecking everything with your steel beast is just fine. That being said, that those situations are going to be fairly rare moving forward, especially if you’re not a 3rd world dictator. quote:As Hob_Gadling alluded to, strategic mobility and even sustainability isn't the be all and end all of military requirements. Outside of primary mission effectiveness they are the most important considerations, and that is absolutely undebatable in my opinion. The US has had a bad tendency to hand-wave deployability and sustainability over the last half century and that thinking has left us with a force that is far too heavy, inflexible, and difficult to sustain. Smart people around the world have figured that out, by the way, and it is a pretty significant driver in strategies to counter American military power. quote:So they're growing in vulnerability compared to what... exactly? Everything, from light AFVs to unarmored infantry. Over the next several decades, low observability will become the new “armor”, so to speak. Sensors and shooters both are simply too good nowadays to be able to rely on out-armoring your threats. Active defense is one major enabler, but the most significant thing is being able to deny ISR through low observability. That doesn’t even get into effects that simply route around physical armor, like electronic and cyber attack. Essentially, it comes down to the fact that uparmoring your stuff to defend against kinetic rounds is no longer the most effective way to protect yourself. Historically, the world’s navies went through this transition twice, first with aircraft (it was no longer adequate to just bolt more steel on your ship, you had to shoot down aircraft trying to sink your ships) and then with missiles (you could no longer defend the fleet locally, you had to patrol out far enough to defeat standoff ASCMs). Air forces went through it with missiles as well; they figured out that you could no longer fly fast enough or high enough to be protected from SAM attack; lower observability was the only way increase survivability. quote:Plus, if we're talking about stuff being observable, how is something a drone/UAS/RPG/-whatever the name du jour is- going to survive in that environment anyway? This is a huge question, one that isn’t really answered yet and one that will play a huge role in future conflicts. Right now, my opinion is pretty simple: tactical airspace is going to turn into a dogfight between UAS just like WWI, and the winner will have a decisive advantage in the ground fight. As such, that’s the decisive point, at least on the physical battlefield. quote:When tactical air supremacy isn't assured, wouldn't a tank, or a different kind of heavy AFVs be an even better option in providing much needed mobile, protected firepower? Possibly, but you’ve got to weigh the tank’s issues as discussed above with the capabilities it brings. Right now, there are very few situations in which a 1970s-style MBT like the Abrams or Leopard 2 is optimal, and those situations are decreasing every year. quote:But will both players in a more evenly matched situation be forgoing on tanks, or heavy AFVs for that matter, based on some kind of mutual agreement? Maybe, I don’t know. What I can say pretty decisively is that if a force rolls out old school MBTs against an American or NATO task force in 2020+ (or even today, really) the tanks will little more than very easily acquired and easily destroyed targets. There are really good reasons why my maneuver brothers and sisters are worried sick about UAS, cyber, electronic and indirect fire and not at all concerned gas guzzling steel boxes armed with a LOS-only cannon. quote:Why are forces around the world not massively reducing their tank and/or heavy AFV numbers at the moment? Some did after the end of the Cold War, but for example real (rather than nominal) HBCT strength in the US Army is holding steady even over the 2013 cuts IIRC. Actually, the US Army is drawing down its heavy forces substantially. The 2019 Force Development Update was literally released this morning; it is FOUO so I can’t post it in detail here but the projected cut is down to 420k on active duty; the vast majority of these cuts are going to be on the heavy maneuver forces and the artillery. As for other nations, I don’t really know much about their acquisition strategies, but I’d say if they are investing heavily in equipment designed to support land warfare strategy that dates from the 1940s then they are not investing effectively. Also if you want to slap your forehead a little bit about our defense budgeting process, , there’s this gem from last year. NO NEW TANKS PLS quote:Why have, over the very recent past, numerous nations jumped into domestic tank development where they had none previously? I would offer it is because they are not sufficiently forward thinking. They, along with the F-35 fleet and maybe 7 of our 11 carriers stand ready to fight the Cold War. Every military is ready to fight the last war, the MBT is a fine example of this.
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 21:05 |
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:That's when fancy tech comes into play. Active defenses like Drozd/Arena/Trophy against rockets, Shtora against laser designators, reactive armour, etc. How good are the active defenses? Do you have links (in English) about their efficiency?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
I don't know if that's a battle that tanks can win. Active defenses preclude supporting infantry as they might end up peppered by defensive shrapnel. Meanwhile we will never come to a point where the material requirements for destroying a tank are going to be more expensive than building it was. But you can't look at tanks separately from other arms, you have to provide context. 25 years from now, infantry might have effective anti-artillery shell point defense systems that make armoured vehicles pointless anyway. We really don't know, just like people didn't foresee demise of the battleship.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
Apparently there's some pretty effective anti-mortar laser based weapon systems mounted on the HMMWV platform at the moment. I don't know much about them other than "they exist" and they make wargaming modern stuff a bit boring.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:How good are the active defenses? Do you have links (in English) about their efficiency? No idea, modern stuff isn't my area of expertise.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:Apparently there's some pretty effective anti-mortar laser based weapon systems mounted on the HMMWV platform at the moment. I don't know much about them other than "they exist" and they make wargaming modern stuff a bit boring. What does it do? I've heard of a system for HMMWs that detects where sniper fire is coming from, is it like that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:What does it do? I've heard of a system for HMMWs that detects where sniper fire is coming from, is it like that? I don't know which version of the subsequent evolutions is being used on the HMMWVs, but apparently it exists and works. I really don't know all that much about modern tech compared to WWII stuff. Arquinsiel fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Jan 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:Apparently there's some pretty effective anti-mortar laser based weapon systems mounted on the HMMWV platform at the moment. I don't know much about them other than "they exist" and they make wargaming modern stuff a bit boring. Any sort of counter-rocket/artillery/mortar solution that involves directed energy is still a long, long way off, if ever. They're only in the earliest test phases right now and there are some big hurdles to overcome (primarily heat dissipation and power generation). Right now, the test vehicle isn't a Humvee, it is a HEMMT and a big trailer, to give you an idea of the space involved. The LPWS is the current C-RAM system; it does the job in a very limited area and isn't mobile at all. A missile interceptor will be the follow-on solution to the gun, it should be relatively effective but the cost-per-shot issue is problematic for obvious reasons.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
It's funny to me that lasers are indispensable in modern warfare - and yet nobody's getting a laser gun anytime soon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Any sort of counter-rocket/artillery/mortar solution that involves directed energy is still a long, long way off, if ever. They're only in the earliest test phases right now and there are some big hurdles to overcome (primarily heat dissipation and power generation). Right now, the test vehicle isn't a Humvee, it is a HEMMT and a big trailer, to give you an idea of the space involved.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Every military is ready to fight the last war, the MBT is a fine example of this. I see where you're coming from and you're probably right at least for the longer term, but I still believe that a number of things you said are focused on recent US or maybe 'interventionist' experiences, which might not entirely apply to others. Not wanting to blow stuff up with lots of collateral damage, and your argument concerning strategic mobility as an issue to be fixed by foregoing heaviness for example. And since I'm feeling particularly quarrelsome today I'll fight your ship and aircraft analogy! Scaling issue!
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:It's funny to me that lasers are indispensable in modern warfare - and yet nobody's getting a laser gun anytime soon. It's already here! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 04:31
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:It's already here! Not man portable, doesn't count.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:It's already here! How disappointing,it needs more ballerness.You cannot go to war with something that looks like a telescope.Put some people to work in making it look awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
Paint it red and call it the Hellascope.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
bewbies posted:
At least for Germany, our MBT-numbers have been reduced several times already since the Berlin wall came down. And there are only plans for adding smaller, lighter vehicles like APCs in the future. Our new MBTs are mostly meant for exporting. The Bundeswehr has gone back to upgrading and maintaining the few MBTs we still have. Of course, there are a lot of naysayer complaining how our army is growing weak without lots of tanks and guns, but that's mostly comments on internet news sites. Most of Germany is overwhelmingly pacifistic anyway and wouldn't care if the Bundeswehr just vanished into thin air tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:Paint it red and call it the Hellascope. Do that, incorporate some heatsink vanes that glow red and smoke a bit after firing, and make more of it protrude from the housing. Beam Amplification Destroyer Munition, Outboard Focused Optics.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:Do that, incorporate some heatsink vanes that glow red and smoke a bit after firing, and make more of it protrude from the housing. At that point, it's just legs away from belonging in the Mechwarrior universe.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:At that point, it's just legs away from belonging in the Mechwarrior universe. It's a laser cannon. It's never not a pair of legs and a neural interface from mechwarrior.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
Libluini posted:At least for Germany, our MBT-numbers have been reduced several times already since the Berlin wall came down. And there are only plans for adding smaller, lighter vehicles like APCs in the future. Our new MBTs are mostly meant for exporting. The Bundeswehr has gone back to upgrading and maintaining the few MBTs we still have. You guys are running a program to introduce an Infantry Fighting Vehicle that is, at its highest level of modular protection (Schutzstufe C), actually heavier than a baseline T-64 or T-72 
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
Koesj posted:You guys are running a program to introduce an Infantry Fighting Vehicle that is, at its highest level of modular protection (Schutzstufe C), actually heavier than a baseline T-64 or T-72 The English wikipedia is out of date, the Puma has so many problems the Bundeswehr most likely won't even consider taking them anymore. The few that will be bought will just stand uselessly around until they fall apart. But I'm sure there will be many buyers (suckers) outside of Germany. By the way, this is just one of the many catastrophes our overly bureaucratic acquirement process produced over the years. There's a combat helicopter which was supposed to be introduced during the 90s. It's still not finished. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
Hey I only said you're running a program, not that actually doing anything with it yet! I guess I should have framed it more ambiguously though. Still, it seems like everything's a Fiasko with you guys right now, so I guess we've been lucky with our IFVs, rifles, fighter planes, ships, and in avoiding Eurohawk here in Clogland. Only NH90 was a shared burden. But then again, how many acquisition programs haven't been messed up world-wide these last decades? I'm still convinced the BW will muddle through and somehow receive a couple hundred of them, because warts and all, I don't think the Puma has or will really reached Schützenpanzer HS 30-levels 
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
So how does NATO actually work as far as chain of command? Lets say for some reason Russia invades Germany during the cold war. How do the NATO countries coordinate? Is it pretty much the nations sign off on a general to head strategic planning?Some sort of council/parliment?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
Was the battle of Tours really that vital in stopping the Umayyads from advancing further into Europe? It seems like they had overextended themselves and there was some serious instability going on around the Caliphate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
KildarX posted:So how does NATO actually work as far as chain of command? Lets say for some reason Russia invades Germany during the cold war. How do the NATO countries coordinate? Is it pretty much the nations sign off on a general to head strategic planning?Some sort of council/parliment? For the non-Clancy scenarios the countries involved work something out. Usually some kind of rotation where each major participant brings in a headquarters unit for a set amount of time and then rotates out. Sometimes it boils down to whoever brought the most dudes gets to be boss. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Jan 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
NATO as a military force in Cold War West-Germany, or in Europe as a whole for that matter, was under the command of Allied Command Europe, with, as was hashed out during NATO's formation, a US 4 star general at its head. He would indeed get the political green light from the NATO Council to meet a major contingency by means of a pretty well integrated multinational force. As you can imagine lots of people thought that sufficient pressure by the US (or maybe West-Germany if we're talking about the later stages of the Cold War) could have forced the 'devolution' if you will of decision-making authority towards NATO's integrated command structure, lest dithering politicians tear the alliance apart in the face of a major crisis. When considering the defense of West-Germany NATO was supposed to get full military authority handed to them before any invasion had taken place, since the transition from peacetime to war by the Soviets should have been picked up. Then they would have gone through a number of alert stages which entailed a very complicated set of reserve activations, forward movements, and deep reinforements getting to each nation's Army's defensive sector (I'm mostly talking about land forces here). From there on there were several ways in which different forces would act together but I'll follow up on this in a bit since I'm massively triggering (it's probably my favorite MilHist subject) and any more writing from my part means I've got to get my poo poo straight. e: welp I've got too much to tell Koesj fucked around with this message at 22:36 on Jan 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
Libluini posted:The English wikipedia is out of date, the Puma has so many problems the Bundeswehr most likely won't even consider taking them anymore. The few that will be bought will just stand uselessly around until they fall apart. But I'm sure there will be many buyers (suckers) outside of Germany. By the way, this is just one of the many catastrophes our overly bureaucratic acquirement process produced over the years. There's a combat helicopter which was supposed to be introduced during the 90s. It's still not finished. That's not entirely fair, a lot of procurement projects were set back when people realized that the Russians probably weren't going to attack after all. After all, the Eurofighter was once know as Jäger 90 (after the year it was supposed to enter service). At least we didn't jump on the F-35 bandwagon. And I, for one, was somewhat disturbed when I realized that a) Greece has more modern MBTs than Germany has, b) Greece has an active fascist party making gains and c) Greeks hate Germans with a passion at the moment. Yeah, there are the entire Balkans inbetween them and us, but still...
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
Koesj posted:But then again, how many acquisition programs haven't been messed up world-wide these last decades? ArchangeI posted:And I, for one, was somewhat disturbed when I realized that a) Greece has more modern MBTs than Germany has, b) Greece has an active fascist party making gains and c) Greeks hate Germans with a passion at the moment. Yeah, there are the entire Balkans inbetween them and us, but still...
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
"Macedonia? That's just a northern province of Greece that went rogue!" - every greek ever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:"Macedonia? That's just a northern province of Greece that went rogue!" - every greek ever. "Macedonia? Oh, you mean Southern Serbia!" - every serbian ever "Macedonia? Oh, you mean that part of Bulgaria that thinks they're a nation now." - every bulgarian ever E: "Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria? They better return our clay!" - every macedonian ever 
SaltyJesus fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Jan 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
"I remember how good poo poo was under Tito! Now poo poo's just hosed up!" - my Macedonian father 
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
Why the gently caress Greece needs so many tanks ? Are they going to start poo poo in the middle east all on their own Alexander the Great Style?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
Lamadrid posted:Why the gently caress Greece needs so many tanks ? Are they going to start poo poo in the middle east all on their own Alexander the Great Style? Turkey.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
WWIII touched off by Greeks invading and conquering everyone would be pretty hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
Lamadrid posted:Why the gently caress Greece needs so many tanks ? Are they going to start poo poo in the middle east all on their own Alexander the Great Style? They probably came attached to one of those bailout deals. As in "Here's some money, but you can only spend it on buying our poo poo." I remember there was a furore over some German submarines they bought like that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 00:12
|
|
|
SaltyJesus posted:They probably came attached to one of those bailout deals. As in "Here's some money, but you can only spend it on buying our poo poo." I remember there was a furore over some German submarines they bought like that. No, they bought them long before that. Probably half the reason they are so deep in the poo poo is because they kept buying modern weapons they couldn't afford. The submarine thing caused an uproar because it went through after the bailout money had been paid and everyone could see that Greece should spend that money on getting its infrastructure sorted, and because it may or may not (read: it did) involve massive bribes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
Lamadrid posted:Why the gently caress Greece needs so many tanks ? Are they going to start poo poo in the middle east all on their own Alexander the Great Style? I think you mean Alexander the Macedonian.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
Alexander of Macedon. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
Lord Tywin posted:Was the battle of Tours really that vital in stopping the Umayyads from advancing further into Europe? It seems like they had overextended themselves and there was some serious instability going on around the Caliphate. They had probably reached their limits before then, yes. The Berbers and Arabs were already fighting over the spoils before the conquest of Hispania was finished. But it stopped, or at least discouraged them from plundering southern France with impunity. Hard to imagine a scenario where the leftover Umayyad regime in Spain could continue the conquests northward without the support of the rest of the Islamic world, which obviously wasn't going to be forthcoming as the Umayyids were replaced by the Abbasids. Shoot, I should try and bring the Dar-al-Islam to Aquitaine and Franconia in CK2 now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 05:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 21:05 |
|
|
Lord Tywin posted:Was the battle of Tours really that vital in stopping the Umayyads from advancing further into Europe? It seems like they had overextended themselves and there was some serious instability going on around the Caliphate. I would hesitate to say that the troubles 'at home' for the Caliphate played much of a role in the fall back from France. It was always a little bit on the periphery, and by the time it rolled into France, no longer really dependent on what happened in the Levant. Case in point; the Abbasids kicked the Umayyads out of the Levant and they went and set up shop in Andalusia so... But yeah, I'd say it was fairly important in demonstrating to the Muslim leadership the cost/benefit breakdown of pushing too hard in Gaul. They probably could have pressed the issue some more, but after Tours it was pretty clear that doing so wouldn't really get them much for their troubles.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 06:32
|
|