|
Ardennes posted:Yeah, that if a bit of an issue considering the PLAAF is rapidly mirroring the capabilities of the USAF and at very least would deny the US air superiority (which would in turn neuter the US army’s offensive capabilities since they don’t really have any where the dedicated AA capabilities they need.) Exactly, we're so convinced we'll always have sit superiority that we don't think that will ever not be the case, even though we saw in Afghanistan plenty of tomrs where air support just wasn't available. Which I guess good, it's no skin off my back that we're only capable of fighting wars if colonial expansion and not one against a peer. Which is funny because they keep saying we can't win these colonial wars because we've got an army for peer warfare
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 18:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 06:33 |
|
|
Well at least we can easily annex Canada since they've already totally surrendered to the USAF.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 18:30
|
|
|
Justin Tyme posted:This is the case, the M16/M4 platform is perfectly fine now. I wouldn't say it requires any more or less maintanence than any other service rifle. It still generally is considered to need a fair degree more maintenance to an AK pattern rifle for a number of reasons. The problem is when you enter an environment that is unforgiving with little downtime, an actual war. KomradeX posted:Exactly, we're so convinced we'll always have sit superiority that we don't think that will ever not be the case, even though we saw in Afghanistan plenty of tomrs where air support just wasn't available. Which I guess good, it's no skin off my back that we're only capable of fighting wars if colonial expansion and not one against a peer. Which is funny because they keep saying we can't win these colonial wars because we've got an army for peer warfare Well, the US Army is a bit of a jack of all trades, since there is still a bunch of legacy equipment from the Cold War mixed with newer anti-insurgency focused equipment/tactics. Part of that is you get weird gaps in capabilities since they rely on equipment that at this point is on the edge of obsolescence so it ends up a hodgepodge. Ardennes has issued a correction as of 18:42 on Jan 19, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 18:36
|
|
|
Stumbled on something this thread should be really interested in. I was checking youtube for any Phoenix Program material (not much) but there is a documentary series on the Phoenix Program produced by Michael Maclear in 1975. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGeFrbVfM7U&t=847s The second part starts off interviewing a Vietnam vet who was so addicted to the thrill of being a combat soldier he volunteered to serve in Rhodesia. Then they talk to Captain Robert Brown (founder of Soldier of Fortune magazine) about his "Phoenix Associates" mercenary service. Then it segues directly into how the Vietnam experience is being brought home to militarize police in the form of SWAT. It's every toxic element of American society & culture that can be traced back to the Vietnam War in one clip. At the time this footage was being shot, Soldier of Fortune was a brand spanking new magazine. Brown would later go on to become a Lieutenant Colonel. He was still serving with the Green Berets even while recruiting mercenaries for Rhodesia and operating SoF. He would later be involved in the El Salvadoran civil war as an "advisor."
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 19:23
|
|
|
Being an "Advisor" is why the Green Berets exist at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 19:53
|
|
|
skooma512 posted:Being an "Advisor" is why the Green Berets exist at all. Our involvement in places like El Salvador was also an evolution of Phoenix & Jakarta. American advisors were basically there to coach the death squads and were on hand to observe the most brutal atrocities in Central America. Brown was always cagey about what exactly he did in Vietnam, but the fact he called his mercenary service "Phoenix Associates" doesn't leave much to the imagination. He was also wounded close to the Cambodian border doing God knows what. He's still alive, by the way. AFAIK he's living in Boulder, Colorado playing a bitter old shitkicker.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 20:11
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:was looking at this book and lmao 44 found it helpful lmfao
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 23:30
|
|
|
Highly recommend listening to this episode about the original m16 being hosed up so some assholes could make money, probably one of my favorites https://m.soundcloud.com/user-798629330/episode-67-the-troubled-birth-of-the-m16
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 00:01
|
|
|
Tempora Mutantur posted:Highly recommend listening to this episode about the original m16 being hosed up so some assholes could make money, probably one of my favorites "just buy Colt Industries" made me audibly gasp when I read it Incredibly naked grift
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 12:47
|
|
|
Loins Led By Donkeys did an episode about it and how Army procurement practically sabotaged the M-16 in Vietnam because it didn't have wood furniture and wasn't the M-14, on top of all of the obvious corruption
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 15:44
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:Loins Led By Donkeys did an episode about it and how Army procurement practically sabotaged the M-16 in Vietnam because it didn't have wood furniture and wasn't the M-14, on top of all of the obvious corruption Loins Led by Donkeys would be a very different, way more offensive podcast.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 15:46
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Loins Led by Donkeys would be a very different, way more offensive podcast. Ha, probably less asinine stupid takes as well
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 15:51
|
|
|
inRangeTV, one of the firearms channels I follow, actually did a "mud test" with the AR-15 versus the AKM some years back: here's the AR-15 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAneTFiz5WU and here's the AK - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX73uXs3xGU they have an interesting take on their findings, given that the AR performed better, even with the dust cover open the cold thing though I've never heard of: what would make the AR act up under low temperatures?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 16:03
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:inRangeTV, one of the firearms channels I follow, actually did a "mud test" with the AR-15 versus the AKM some years back: Yeah, if you look around YouTube, there are also frost/cold tests. The m16 was having serious issues from the get-go. As far as inrange/forgotten weapons, my take is what happens when you start neglecting maintenance on firearms and rather than being just dipped, you start having built up grim trapped inside the action. From what I have read at least, this is when the m16 starts having serious issues while an AK can more easily be brought into action. To be clear, when properly taken care of, the AR platform is very accurate and can be quite reliable. The issue is putting it less than ideal conditions, not just mud/dust etc, but when a soldier is actually desperate. Ardennes has issued a correction as of 17:11 on Jan 20, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 16:59
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Only six? That's not a lot lol Six is far more carriers than most countries can even field, its actually alot of the USN ability to project power ashore thats on mission rn.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 21:18
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:To be clear, when properly taken care of, the AR platform is very accurate and can be quite reliable. The issue is putting it less than ideal conditions, not just mud/dust etc, but when a soldier is actually desperate. To my understanding the majority of engagements don’t last very long and are often followed by long bouts of hurry up and wait. What type of engagement would result in a soldier being unable to clean their weapon for so long it would be at risk of malfunctioning?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 21:40
|
|
|
GrunkleStalin posted:To my understanding the majority of engagements don’t last very long and are often followed by long bouts of hurry up and wait. It would take a while to safely clean your weapon if you're light infantry fighting a guerilla war. The AK is still a lot more forgiving for insurgencies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 21:45
|
|
|
Turtle Sandbox posted:Six is far more carriers than most countries can even field, its actually alot of the USN ability to project power ashore thats on mission rn. To add, a Gerald Ford class carrier costs $12.9 billion dollars to build, has a crew of about 2,600, and has a complement of another few thousand enlisted and officers, plus all the aircraft. These things are enormous ships, they are practically floating cities that are self sufficient for a long time before trips to port. We've also got 12 other carriers of the Nimitz class which cost $8.5 billion each, have a crew of about 6000, and a whole bunch of aircraft too. HonorableTB has issued a correction as of 22:00 on Jan 20, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 21:57
|
|
|
Why's the Ford class complement so much smaller, automation?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 22:02
|
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:Why's the Ford class complement so much smaller, automation? That's a lot of it, yeah. They are significantly more automated than the Nimitz class is. The Ford's reactors are also smaller and significantly more powerful than the Nimitz reactors, and that is a big space saver too since you don't need as big of a compartment, as much shielding, or as much (also shielded) fuel for it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 22:09
|
|
|
GrunkleStalin posted:To my understanding the majority of engagements don’t last very long and are often followed by long bouts of hurry up and wait. I would say the issue is a more chaotic situation where US soldiers would actually be on the defense without solid air cover. In an actual hot war, soldiers may not have the time to do so. Admittedly, I think push comes to shove, we would just refuse to fight. HonorableTB posted:That's a lot of it, yeah. They are significantly more automated than the Nimitz class is. The Ford's reactors are also smaller and significantly more powerful than the Nimitz reactors, and that is a big space saver too since you don't need as big of a compartment, as much shielding, or as much (also shielded) fuel for it. The Ford also has elevators that barely work and is still in trials even thought it was commissioned in 2017. The Nimitz itself was commissioned 47 years ago and if anything much of the USN is from the 1970s and 1980s. Also, the US has 10 fully functional Nimitz class carriers, so in reality a 10 carrier navy. Ardennes has issued a correction as of 23:03 on Jan 20, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 23:00
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I would say the issue is a more chaotic situation where US soldiers would actually be on the defense without solid air cover. In an actual hot war, soldiers may not have the time to do so. Admittedly, I think push comes to shove, we would just refuse to fight. This is exactly what the South Africans did when Cuban fighters made it impossible for them to resupply from air in the bush.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 23:18
|
|
|
Imagine naming anything after Gerald Ford.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 23:18
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I would say the issue is a more chaotic situation where US soldiers would actually be on the defense without solid air cover. In an actual hot war, soldiers may not have the time to do so. Admittedly, I think push comes to shove, we would just refuse to fight. A 10 carrier effective navy is only 1 fewer than the number of carriers in the rest of the world's navies combined lol, that's insane. US has 11 (10, effective) China: 2 Italy: 2 UK: 2 Thailand: 1 Spain: 1 India: 1 Russia: 1 France: 1
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 23:26
|
|
|
HonorableTB posted:A 10 carrier effective navy is only 1 fewer than the number of carriers in the rest of the world's navies combined lol, that's insane. so you're saying they have a chance?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 23:31
|
|
|
i say swears online posted:so you're saying they have a chance? If they have a lot of subs, probably! Carriers are big floating slow targets, perfect for an attack sub that can manage to get through the destroyer and anti-sub screens around it. Now admittedly, that's a big caveat, but carriers are natural torpedo bait should the opportunity present itself. Also, if they get too close to land, land based ASMs will do it a lot faster and cheaper, without risking an expensive sub and trained crew, if you fire enough of them. Edit: Also they're vulnerable from the air, but at that point you're in another battle of midway since its your planes vs their planes, and whoever wins the air battle gets to paint carriers on their aircraft afterwards. you can see how this would play out in the hit flight sim game Ace Combat 7~ HonorableTB has issued a correction as of 23:41 on Jan 20, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 23:38
|
|
|
HonorableTB posted:If they have a lot of subs, probably! Carriers are big floating slow targets, perfect for an attack sub that can manage to get through the destroyer and anti-sub screens around it. Now admittedly, that's a big caveat, but carriers are natural torpedo bait It's not much of a caveat since China and North Korea have significant submarine fleets. A contemporary diesel sub is very cheap to produce, way quieter than a nuclear submarine, and can launch torpedoes that are just as deadly as any nuclear sub is capable of. Anybody with enough naval production capacity could produce a significant fleet of diesel subs. They might not have much doctrine or experience, but like the IRA say "we only have to get lucky once." Anti-ship missiles are also really cheap and effective.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 23:46
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:It's not much of a caveat since China and North Korea have significant submarine fleets. A contemporary diesel sub is very cheap to produce, way quieter than a nuclear submarine, and can launch torpedoes that are just as deadly as any nuclear sub is capable of. Anybody with enough naval production capacity could produce a significant fleet of diesel subs. They might not have much doctrine or experience, but like the IRA say "we only have to get lucky once." You're right - I mostly added that caveat because I don't know what kind of anti-sub tech the US Navy has, especially on such important targets like aircraft carriers, so I was trying to build in some buffer to account for classified systems/tech/weapons that would change the tactical calculus enough to affect the strategic calculus of how to attack a carrier group
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 23:51
|
|
|
And the navy does not have a dedicated surface ASW ship other than retrofitted destroyers from the 70s and 80s, and land based P8 aircraft. Their entire strategy hinges on carriers, but the hard counter is subs and they’re slacking on that. They expect to just block all inbound anti ship missiles with Sams, CIWS, and aircraft but uh, you do know China has a lot of industrial capacity right? I don’t know what if any influence attack subs would have vis a vis other subs. IIRC there has yet to be a sub on sub battle in all of naval history.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 23:55
|
|
|
From what I understand ASW is still really hard even for a country with as many material advantages as the United States. You'd need to reimagine your whole naval doctrine to have an effective counter to subs - and you still might lose because it only takes one sub to slip through and get firing solution on a supercarrier.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 23:59
|
|
|
skooma512 posted:And the navy does not have a dedicated surface ASW ship other than retrofitted destroyers from the 70s and 80s, and land based P8 aircraft. There was (kind of) one! In the American Civil War, even Edit: doh, I misremembered. A Confederate submarine sank a union surface ship, not a union sub. Still really cool though! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._L._Hunley_(submarine) https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/spotlight-primary-source/civil-war-and-early-submarine-warfare-1863 posted:Most accounts of actual Civil War submarine combat focus on the sinking of the USS Housatonic by the CSS H. L. Hunley in February 1864, but few mention an earlier but unsuccessful attack by a cigar-shaped vessel, the CSS David, in October 1863. This letter from Union sailor Lewis H. West is a rare eyewitness account of that incident, one of the earliest submarine attacks in naval history. On his first night on board the USS New Ironsides, West experienced the David’s attack. Stealthily cutting through Charleston Bay almost entirely submerged, the David crew attempted to explode a torpedo (what we now refer to as a mine) and in the process nearly destroyed their own vessel. According to West, the "nondescript craft" barely damaged the New Ironsides, and divers found "that Lewis H. West to R. West, October 8, 1863. (Gilder Lehrman Collection)Lewis H. West to R. West, October 8, 1863. (Gilder Lehrman Collection)not a plate or bolt is started." HonorableTB has issued a correction as of 00:04 on Jan 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 00:01
|
|
|
HonorableTB posted:A 10 carrier effective navy is only 1 fewer than the number of carriers in the rest of the world's navies combined lol, that's insane. Saying that China and the UK have 2 effective carriers is like saying that Biden has 2 functioning neurons. I mean, it's technically true, but...
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 00:11
|
|
|
sullat posted:Saying that China and the UK have 2 effective carriers is like saying that Biden has 2 functioning neurons. I mean, it's technically true, but... I'm not aware of the UK having anything but the two Queen Elizabeth class carriers that make up their UK Carrier Strike Group. Same for China's Type 001 and Type 002, with a third under construction.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 00:13
|
|
|
I think there was one instance of sub vs sub combat in ww2?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 00:14
|
|
|
The issue for the US is that they put themselves in a position where even their 10 carrier navy is stretched thin because it is attempting to handle so many jobs at once, like having a carrier parked in the Mediterranean just to attempt to spook Russia. It is why China in reality needs about 6 carriers to challenge the US since the US can only bring so much of its strength to bear in the Indo-Pacific region and China is going to launch its 3rd in a few months. It doesn’t look like China is going to stop construction any time soon either. Also, China has plenty of AIP diesel subs as well and they are building more modern nuclear submarines with everything else. It is why the US has a little of an issue in the Pacific. Ardennes has issued a correction as of 01:12 on Jan 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 01:10
|
|
|
There is still an open question on how the US will react if one of those carriers gets sunk though. Someone in another thread called them floating aquilas and I wonder how badly Biden or Trump would curse Quintilius Varus if they went down
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 01:40
|
|
|
WW3 will bring an end to carriers as a crown jewel of militaries just like WW2 ended the reign of the battleship You could probably sink a 10 billion dollar carrier with much less than 10 billion dollars' worth of ballistic missiles
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 01:44
|
|
|
Anti-torpedo torpedoes were in development for the USN and could have been a game changer if the program wasn't cancelled in 2018 lol. Supercavitating torpedoes would probably zoom right past those countermeasures anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 01:45
|
|
|
Top Gun Reference posted:Anti-torpedo torpedoes were in development for the USN and could have been a game changer if the program wasn't cancelled in 2018 lol. Supercavitating torpedoes would probably zoom right past those countermeasures anyway. Ah, you mean the hydrosonic missiles 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 01:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 06:33 |
|
|
Does China really need carriers anyway? Can't they just use land based aircraft? E: seems to me China's biggest weakness is oil imports. Here's the top source countries for oil imports in 2020. Saudi Arabia: US$28.1 billion (15.9% of China’s crude oil imports) Russia: $27.3 billion (15.5%) Iraq: $19.2 billion (10.9%) Angola: $13.91 billion (7.9%) Brazil: $13.9 billion (7.9%) Oman: $12.8 billion (7.3%) United Arab Emirates: $9.7 billion (5.5%) Kuwait: $9 billion (5.1%) United States: $6.3 billion (3.6%) Norway: $4.3 billion (2.4%) Malaysia: $3.7 billion (2.1%) Colombia: $3.5 billion (2%) Congo: $3 billion (1.7%) United Kingdom: $2.2 billion (1.2%) Gabon: $2.1 billion (1.2%) Weka has issued a correction as of 02:20 on Jan 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 02:16
|
|