The US will lose WW3

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > The US will lose WW3

«‹›605 »

Alamani57: Dec 15, 2010

Cerebral Bore posted:

otoh that sounds exactly like something the us army would use

Yea, is China willing to trade?

# ? Sep 11, 2022 17:54

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 26, 2024 16:58

Danann: Aug 4, 2013

https://twitter.com/obsidianstatue1/status/1566819943915864064

some more footage of the unmanned vehicles and robots

also exoskeletons being applied for logistics work

# ? Sep 11, 2022 20:24

fabergay egg: Mar 1, 2012; it's not a rhetorical question, for politely saying 'you are an idiot, you don't know what you are talking about'

strikes me that incorporating modern technology into official doctrine would be more effective than keeping it hidden as a secret wonder weapon that only a select few train with. but what do i know, i�m just a garden variety moron.

# ? Sep 11, 2022 20:31

Real hurthling!: Sep 11, 2001

that kind of stuff is great on paper to make uncle sam waste money on catch up but any ground-based robot is toast within a few days of deploying to a real warzone i would imagine.

# ? Sep 11, 2022 20:50

Rutibex: Sep 9, 2001; by Fluffdaddy

fabergay egg posted:

strikes me that incorporating modern technology into official doctrine would be more effective than keeping it hidden as a secret wonder weapon that only a select few train with. but what do i know, i�m just a garden variety moron.

i think it makes a difference when your modern technology is reasonably priced because you have lots of factories vs $10 million per unit US government wonder weapon

# ? Sep 11, 2022 20:52

NeonPunk: Dec 21, 2020

Real hurthling! posted:

that kind of stuff is great on paper to make uncle sam waste money on catch up but any ground-based robot is toast within a few days of deploying to a real warzone i would imagine.

Thata why you just make them military grade and pump them out as cheaply you can.

I wonder which country has the expertise of manufacturing various things on the cheap?

# ? Sep 11, 2022 20:52

The Atomic Man-Boy: Jul 23, 2007

NeonPunk posted:

Thata why you just make them military grade and pump them out as cheaply you can.

I wonder which country has the expertise of manufacturing various things on the cheap?

We just make extremely expensive poo poo that requires A) parts from a foreign power that we decided we needed to be hostile against, and b) a part from every state so no legislators get cold feet about supporting the death machine.

In a real war our productive capacity would live as long as a fruit fly.

# ? Sep 11, 2022 21:08

Real hurthling!: Sep 11, 2001

big robot believers itt

at least they will look cool stuck in the mud

# ? Sep 11, 2022 21:12

Danann: Aug 4, 2013

https://twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1568490319754268672

update on the f-35 saga: every single one of them used chinese materials

# ? Sep 12, 2022 01:19

Lostconfused: Oct 1, 2008

US should stock up on parts just incase there's some unexpected breakdown in trade.

# ? Sep 12, 2022 01:21

RaySmuckles: Oct 14, 2009; Grimey Drawer

Real hurthling! posted:

that kind of stuff is great on paper to make uncle sam waste money on catch up but any ground-based robot is toast within a few days of deploying to a real warzone i would imagine.

this thread does have a bit of a blindspot for the modern american perspective on war material

that is, that everything is basically hosed within a couple days on the modern battlefield. durability is basically irrelevant

we laugh cuz the new m5 shoots expensive, barrel destroying bullets, but its already taken into account that those things won't last long. front-line service in a real warzone is absolute destruction

those robots would be hosed. the soldiers would be hosed. everything would be hosed because ordnance is still king and better than ever with drones

that's part of why the US will lose ww3: there's really now foreseeable to "win" it. even non-nuclear the destruction would be absolute

# ? Sep 12, 2022 01:35

Palladium: May 8, 2012; Very Good
✔️✔️✔️✔️

Country that prides itself as the bastion of capitalism surprised by their own capitalists getting goods from the most cost effective place

# ? Sep 12, 2022 02:14

Palladium: May 8, 2012; Very Good
✔️✔️✔️✔️

Danann posted:

https://twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1568490319754268672

update on the f-35 saga: every single one of them used chinese materials

This is why we need the new F-36 with all american parts at $2 billion per plane, while writing op-eds about how the chinese has controlled every government in the world by donating $30K to an aussie hospital

# ? Sep 12, 2022 02:16

gradenko_2000: Oct 5, 2010; HELL SERPENT; Lipstick Apathy

using robots and exoskeletons for logistic work seems fine and cool

# ? Sep 12, 2022 05:18

KomradeX: Oct 29, 2011

gradenko_2000 posted:

using robots and exoskeletons for logistic work seems fine and cool

Plus they're useful for fighting the alien Queen if she sneaks aboard your ship

# ? Sep 12, 2022 05:29

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

saw this article by Lily Lynch about what NATO is doing to prepare for robot WW3 and thought it was very interesting

quote:

�The fantasy of an instinctively peaceful world may be comforting, but it is again coming to an end�, Alex Karp, CEO of Peter Thiel�s CIA-funded Palantir, wrote in an ominous open letter to European leaders a few weeks after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. A co-founder of the company � and Thiel�s Stanford roommate in the early nineties � Karp warned the continent of the high cost of complacency in the face of the �aspirations of autocratic rule�, and reminded them that for the past two decades Europe �has stood on the sidelines of the digital revolution, whose principal participants are still essentially all based in the United States�.

The message was straightforward: innovate or die. Adopt Palantir technologies as the US military has done, or risk domination. Elsewhere, Karp has been no less pointed. �Military AI will determine our lives, the lives of your kids�, he said in an interview at Davos in 2020. �This is a zero-sum thing. The country with the most important AI, the most powerful AI, will determine the rules. That country should either be us or a western country.� At the beginning of June, Karp travelled to Ukraine to make a similar pitch about the role of technology in modern warfare to President Zelensky. The meeting marked the first visit of a CEO to Ukraine since the war began (Karp would later gush that Zelensky was one of the very few heads of state he�d ever met who he could imagine serving as a successful CEO).

A few weeks later, a sprawling transatlantic �innovation� architecture was announced that will facilitate precisely what Karp and Palantir have been advocating. At NATO�s summit in Madrid, the alliance declared the creation of �the world�s first multi-sovereign venture capital fund� to invest in start-ups and other entities working on technologies �with great military potential� � including artificial intelligence, autonomy, big-data processing, biotechnology and human enhancement. As Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg explained, �the NATO Innovation Fund will help bring to life those nascent technologies that have the power to transform our security in the decades to come, strengthening the alliance�s innovation ecosystem and bolstering the security of our one billion citizens�.

The fund is described as a complement to NATO�s new Defense Innovation Accelerator of the North Atlantic, known by its unsettling anthropoid acronym, DIANA. Modelled on the US Defense Research Projects Agency, DARPA, whose best-known achievement is the creation of the internet, DIANA will encompass sixty innovation sites in twenty NATO member states. With its European headquarters at Imperial College London, the endeavour is said to be a �joint effort between private sector entities, non-governmental entities, and academia� to ensure the alliance �can harness the best of new technology for transatlantic security�. A further ten accelerator sites will provide financing and mentorship to technology start-ups with potential application in warfare, and there will be more than fifty �dedicated test centres� spread across the alliance.

The news was met with enthusiasm by those in the habit of issuing grave pronouncements about the West �falling behind�. An editorial in the National Interest even declared that �innovation could save NATO�. These cyclical efforts to �save NATO� by finding a new raison d��tre for it every decade or so brings to mind the quip about the alliance �attempting to justify its own existence in ever more imaginative ways�.

This push for �innovation� is the product of grander developments. Madrid saw the unveiling of NATO�s new strategic concept, its first since 2010. The 16-page document describes a very different world than the last, one in which �the Euro-Atlantic area is not at peace�, and � echoing the Biden administration�s rhetoric � �authoritarian� actors are threatening our democracies. The Russian Federation represents �the most significant and direct threat to Allies� security and to peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area�. But in a historic move, China is explicitly described as a �systemic challenge� for the first time. �The People�s Republic of China�s (PRC) stated ambitions and coercive policies challenge our interests, security and values�, the concept states (relatedly, NATO invited the leaders of Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand to the summit � another historic first). While the document says that allies �remain open to constructive engagement with China�, the intention is to reconfigure NATO as anti-China military alliance, on belligerent US-UK lines.

That NATO identified China as a systemic challenge at the same time it announced a vast program to accelerate technological innovation is no coincidence. While NATO and companies like Palantir have seized on the invasion of Ukraine to push this agenda, Russia is not the West�s main competitor in the field of new technology. �NATO is primarily concerned with Chinese (rather than Russian) innovation in the field of emerging and disruptive technologies�, Simona Soares, a fellow of the International Institute for Strategic Studies wrote in a German Marshall Fund report last year. �China is the main geopolitical driver behind allied innovation plans.�

The reorientation is especially significant for the EU. �For the first time since the Mongol invasion of Europe in the 13th century, European powers now view an Asian power as a direct threat�, Jo Inge Bekkevold, a former Norwegian intelligence official and fellow at its Institute for Defence Studies, proclaimed in a recent article for Foreign Policy. Bekkevold envisions an emerging division of labour for the alliance, with the US focused on China, the EU on Russia.

Until recently, there had been optimism about the trajectory of EU-China relations. The draft of an ambitious comprehensive investment agreement was drawn up, after protracted negotiations. In 2018, EU military forces conducted a combined naval exercise with the People�s Liberation Army at a Chinese military base in Djibouti. In 2020, China surpassed the United States to become the EU�s largest trading partner. And while Beijing has repeatedly blamed �US-led NATO� for the war in Ukraine, it has largely refrained from directly criticizing the EU. Editorials in Chinese media assert that �a weaker Europe serves US interests� and describe the heavy price, in soaring food and energy prices, that Europeans are being made to pay for US imperial ambitions. �China and the EU should act as two major forces upholding world peace, and offset uncertainties in the international landscape�, Xi Jingping told EU leaders at a summit in April, exhorting them to reject the �rival-bloc mentality� promoted by the US.

Relations however have been deteriorating in recent months, with many European countries abandoning their �tightrope diplomacy� with China and lining up decisively behind the United States and NATO. The full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and Beijing�s reticence to criticize Russia for it, has hastened this process. In April, EU chief diplomat Joseph Borrell published a blog post titled �On China�s Choices and Responsibilities� excoriating Beijing for its �pro-Russian neutrality�. All three Baltic States have pulled out of the 17+1 China-CEE initiative � established by Beijing a decade ago to strengthen relations with Central and Eastern Europe. Last week, the German ambassador in Beijing used her first public speech in the country last week to raise concerns about China�s zero-Covid policy and tensions across the Taiwan Strait.

It is little wonder then that developments in Madrid have met with a frosty reception in Beijing. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian condemned the new strategic concept, lambasting NATO for promoting conflict, confrontation and �a Cold War mentality�. When Germany subsequently announced that it would send warplanes to take part in US-led exercises in the Indo-Pacific, the Chinese foreign ministry�s response was mockery, saying that this �will probably lead to some bad memories and associations in many countries in the world�.

NATO member states may be more united behind the US than ever before, but there are likely to be disagreements over some of the technologies in development. Of greatest concern are lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS) or �slaughterbots�, which can search for targets and kill entirely independently. Several NATO members, including Belgium and Germany, have been much more reticent about these than the US and UK. The rise of this kind of technology has conjured fears of a new arms race with China. Karp is unapologetic about this: he says that Palantir is working on �a new Manhattan Project�. The company is certainly prepared to go further than most. In 2019, it took over the Pentagon�s Project Maven after Google abandoned it over �ethical concerns�. The controversial project, which prompted walkouts from Google employees, aims to construct AI-powered surveillance systems for unmanned aerial vehicles.

Dissenting voices have expressed serious concerns, though have been given predictably little space in the media. �DIANA and the NATO innovation fund will divert researchers and research funding in key civilian areas � e.g AI, big data � thus reducing the potential benefits for health and environment, at a time of increasing poverty, inequality, pandemics, and ecological disasters�, Stuart Parkinson, director of Scientists for Global Responsibility, wrote in an email this week. �Innovation programs like DIANA are most likely to increase and entrench militarism for decades to come, undermining security for all�.

But all of this is welcome news for some. Europe is decisively lining up behind the United States and NATO; talk of �decoupling from China� abounds. There is little ambiguity about what is happening. With the vast majority of the Global South loathe to impose sanctions on Russia, the current global competition is one of �the West� against the rest. This serves the interests of the US and Silicon Valley quite well. �The core mission of our company�, Karp said at Davos in 2020, �always was to make the West, especially America, the strongest in the world, the strongest it�s ever been.�

https://newleftreview.org/sidecar/posts/looking-east

# ? Sep 12, 2022 13:51

Rutibex: Sep 9, 2001; by Fluffdaddy

I hope the invent those micro drones the size of a big insect that fly into your skull and explode a shaped charge into your brain

# ? Sep 12, 2022 15:35

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

vyelkin posted:

saw this article by Lily Lynch about what NATO is doing to prepare for robot WW3 and thought it was very interesting

The focus of this article is different, but this seems a perfect companion piece to an article I read a while ago about which type of AI are an actual realistic threat. That being AIs developed by the rich and the powerful to strengthen their control over the world, which I am pretty sure is what they're actually wanting to do with DIANA, not something as down to earth as slaughterbots or as fantastic as super intelligent sapient AI.

Though I suppose slaughterbots for domestic use might serve a purpose, for when the rich and powerful lose their faith in cops.

# ? Sep 12, 2022 15:56

A Bakers Cousin: Dec 18, 2003; by vyelkin

Rutibex posted:

I hope the invent those micro drones the size of a big insect that fly into your skull and explode a shaped charge into your brain

i dont think putting a small charge on this would be hard so too late?

https://dronelife.com/2020/06/18/nano-drones-the-tiny-drones-the-military-is-buying/

# ? Sep 12, 2022 17:42

The Oldest Man: Jul 28, 2003

A Bakers Cousin posted:

i dont think putting a small charge on this would be hard so too late?

https://dronelife.com/2020/06/18/nano-drones-the-tiny-drones-the-military-is-buying/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-2tpwW0kmU

# ? Sep 12, 2022 20:33

KomradeX: Oct 29, 2011

Latest grift dropping

quote:

The Abrams tank's specs sheet shows a 70-ton behemoth equipped with a 1,500-horsepower turbine engine and 120mm cannon. While they're extremely durable, they're also heavy and slow to deploy. MPFs, on the other hand, are supposed to be lighter 30-ton vehicles equipped with smaller 105mm cannons (via U.S. Army). MPFs will be serving as support for Infantry Brigade Combat Teams (IBCT) — the military's light ground units. These vehicles are meant to supplant the Marine Corps' eight-wheeled light armored vehicle — the LAV25 — albeit using tank-like tracks instead of tires, with GD giving them modern diesel engines and enhanced thermal viewers.

Sure, it might not fend off full-sized tanks, but that's not what MPFs are about. The proposal emphasizes that the key here is being light, as MPFs are supposed to have the armaments of a tank yet still be compact enough to be airlifted onto the battlefield and maneuvered in tight environments. Its concept is a bit like Cobra Kai's motto: strike first, strike hard. That means dispatching smaller enemy forces, armored vehicles, and defensive bunkers swiftly and efficiently, gaining the upper hand before enemy forces can even react.

https://www.slashgear.com/1007640/the-u-s-army-releases-a-brand-new-vehicle-for-the-first-time-in-4-decades/

Looks like they're trying to reinvent the light tank but make something more like a medium tank

# ? Sep 16, 2022 14:22

Frosted Flake: Sep 13, 2011; Semper Shitpost Ubique

KomradeX posted:

Latest grift dropping

https://www.slashgear.com/1007640/the-u-s-army-releases-a-brand-new-vehicle-for-the-first-time-in-4-decades/

Looks like they're trying to reinvent the light tank but make something more like a medium tank

This is what, this sixth attempt since the M551, not counting the Stryker MGS?

# ? Sep 16, 2022 14:33

KomradeX: Oct 29, 2011

Frosted Flake posted:

This is what, this sixth attempt since the M551, not counting the Stryker MGS?

At this point they mighr as well just start making their own versions of the T-72, its not much heavier than this thing and probably fills the role better.

At this point we might as well bring back the old system, a a bradley is a light tank, this is a medium and the Abrams is a heavy (super heavy?) tank

# ? Sep 16, 2022 15:14

Filthy Hans: Jun 27, 2008; by Fluffdaddy
(and can't post for 10 years!)

apart from grift, I don't see the point of lighter tanks, the Abrams is 70 tons partially because it carries enough armor and equipment to stop man-portable antitank weapons

anywhere you can airlift a lighter tank, someone else can bring in plenty of weapons that can disable or destroy it

# ? Sep 16, 2022 20:42

The Oldest Man: Jul 28, 2003

Filthy Hans posted:

apart from grift, I don't see the point of lighter tanks, the Abrams is 70 tons partially because it carries enough armor and equipment to stop man-portable antitank weapons

anywhere you can airlift a lighter tank, someone else can bring in plenty of weapons that can disable or destroy it

It's because it uses a lot less gas and can still shoot a pretty good sized HE shell for infantry support without tipping itself over from either the gun weight or the recoil forces so you can stick them in your infantry formations without suddenly having your infantry formations consume gas like they're a heavy tank formation, plus you can stick an active protection system on it and it won't blow itself up, both of which are more than you can say about LAV derivatives no matter how many times they try to stick a 105 on top of them.

This is light tanks in theory ofc not this specific light tank which is looking a lil JSFy.

# ? Sep 16, 2022 21:16

Regarde Aduck: Oct 19, 2012; c l o u d k i t t e n; Grimey Drawer

Filthy Hans posted:

apart from grift, I don't see the point of lighter tanks, the Abrams is 70 tons partially because it carries enough armor and equipment to stop man-portable antitank weapons

anywhere you can airlift a lighter tank, someone else can bring in plenty of weapons that can disable or destroy it

generally the best way to survive is to not get hit

even for tanks the best bet is to not test the armor. Light tanks are made with the assumption they'll survive long enough to complete missions

# ? Sep 16, 2022 22:19

Filthy Hans: Jun 27, 2008; by Fluffdaddy
(and can't post for 10 years!)

Regarde Aduck posted:

generally the best way to survive is to not get hit

even for tanks the best bet is to not test the armor. Light tanks are made with the assumption they'll survive long enough to complete missions

this assumption is what I find dubious, although I'm the first to admit I'm a mere dilettante when it comes to military gear

# ? Sep 16, 2022 22:28

Morbus: May 18, 2004

Filthy Hans posted:

apart from grift, I don't see the point of lighter tanks, the Abrams is 70 tons partially because it carries enough armor and equipment to stop man-portable antitank weapons

anywhere you can airlift a lighter tank, someone else can bring in plenty of weapons that can disable or destroy it

Infantry needs to be mechanized wherever it's possible, and a big, direct-fire cannon is a useful weapon that can't really be replaced by anything else. So, you need a system that 1.) has a big cannon on a turret, and 2.) drives around at some reasonable speed in varied terrain. That's what tanks are for. The armor is really just there because it can be. The fact that you can accomplish #1 and #2 while offering pretty outstanding crew protection (better than what they can have under just about any other circumstances) just turns tanks from good into great.

There is a maximum weight that a tank can have before it becomes useless, and 70 tons is right around the limit. There is only so much protection that can be afforded to a 70 ton tank, and that degree of protection generally precludes reliably surviving hits from modern anti-tank weapons to anything but the front. So, every now and again someone raises the question of whether you really need to bother with all that armor, or if it's better to have a tank that weighs half as much, still protects against most weapons and artillery, but just doesn't try to eat an APFSDS or Konkurs to the face and survive. Maybe, the best way to protect the tank is to just know the dispositions of enemy forces, stay at a reasonable range, and be protected by other friendly assets like short range air defense systems and infantry...

The answer over the ages has been a resounding "meh". The bottom line is that if your logistics can support the heavier tank, and it is physically able to cross bridges, the lighter tank won't really do anything better, and will do some things worse. The light tank may be cheaper, but who cares? Tanks are cheap in general. "bluh buh what about airlifting" never really matters since these stupid loving wars never work out to be the lightning fast combined arms maneuver exercises they are imagined as, and always devolve into chaotic shitpits for, by, and of morons.

Morbus has issued a correction as of 22:47 on Sep 16, 2022

# ? Sep 16, 2022 22:37

Filthy Hans: Jun 27, 2008; by Fluffdaddy
(and can't post for 10 years!)

Morbus posted:

Infantry needs to be mechanized wherever it's possible, and a big, direct-fire cannon is a useful weapon that can't really be replaced by anything else. So, you need a system that 1.) has a big cannon on a turret, and 2.) drives around at some reasonable speed in varied terrain. That's what tanks are for. The armor is really just there because it can be. The fact that you can accomplish #1 and #2 while offering pretty outstanding crew protection (better than what they can have under just about any other circumstances) just turns tanks from good into great.

There is a maximum weight that a tank can have before it becomes useless, and 70 tons is right around the limit. There is only so much protection that can be afforded to a 70 ton tank, and that degree of protection generally precludes reliably surviving hits from modern anti-tank weapons to anything but the front. So, every now and again someone raises the question of whether you really need to bother with all that armor, or if it's better to have a tank that weighs half as much, still protects against most weapons and artillery, but just doesn't try to eat an APFSDS or Konkurs to the face and survive. Maybe, the best way to protect the tank is to just know the dispositions of enemy forces, stay at a reasonable range, and be protected by other friendly assets like short range air defense systems and infantry...

The answer over the ages has been a resounding "meh". The bottom line is that if your logistics can support the heavier tank, and it is physically able to cross bridges, the lighter tank won't really do anything better, and will do some things worse. The light tank may be cheaper, but who cares? Tanks are cheap in general. "bluh buh what about airlifting" never really matters since these stupid loving wars never work out to be the lightning fast combined arms maneuver exercises they are imagined as, and always devolve into chaotic shitpits for, by, and of morons.

from what I can tell, the ground war stuff most armies can do competently is mobile infantry and APCs, mobile artillery and rockets, helicopters, heavy tanks, land mines, special forces and I guess drones too now but I don't know how successful smaller armies' drones are, like the Iranian drones for example

light tanks don't appear on that list, and it seems like many of those projects have failed because adapting lighter frames into tanks have ended up in perpetual development

I have no idea how well ground-based anti-air and missile interception systems work, although my guess is the former are pretty good and the latter much less so

# ? Sep 16, 2022 23:35

Rutibex: Sep 9, 2001; by Fluffdaddy

light tanks are good early game. but when you have a lot of credits it's best to build neotanks

# ? Sep 16, 2022 23:52

Real hurthling!: Sep 11, 2001

wanzers or go home

# ? Sep 17, 2022 00:02

Egg Moron: Jul 21, 2003; the dreams of the delighting void

the new top gun movie did not feature a single american fighter from this century

# ? Sep 17, 2022 00:09

Ansar Santa: Jul 12, 2012

Egg Moron posted:

the new top gun movie did not feature a single american fighter from this century

Basically you got either the F-22 or the F-35. Can't do the F-35 because its lame and sucks, and while the F-22 is pretty cool you cant do it because it's air force only. Anyway, while the F-22 is pretty cool, the chinese MiGs can create a firestorm if you have 4 of them hit the same spot, and it'll take out a gla sam bunker completely if you have the black napalm upgrade

# ? Sep 17, 2022 00:26

The Oldest Man: Jul 28, 2003

The movie should have been them training for the first half and then they get sit down and the Admiral is like "well anyway they deployed the S400s, your mission is scrubbed"

The second half is a bunch of rear end-covering and political recriminations after an unrelated accident due to flight deck crew being on 1 hour of sleep and jacked to the tits on rip fuel

# ? Sep 17, 2022 00:31

Real hurthling!: Sep 11, 2001

they should make planes like in ace combat that can carry 72 giant missiles

# ? Sep 17, 2022 00:32

Filthy Hans: Jun 27, 2008; by Fluffdaddy
(and can't post for 10 years!)

The Oldest Man posted:

The movie should have been them training for the first half and then they get sit down and the Admiral is like "well anyway they deployed the S400s, your mission is scrubbed"

The second half is a bunch of rear end-covering and political recriminations after an unrelated accident due to flight deck crew being on 1 hour of sleep and jacked to the tits on rip fuel

"sorry Maverick, the mission's scrubbed because the jet fuel all leaked out of storage and into the Hawaiian aquifer"

# ? Sep 17, 2022 00:39

KomradeX: Oct 29, 2011

Filthy Hans posted:

from what I can tell, the ground war stuff most armies can do competently is mobile infantry and APCs, mobile artillery and rockets, helicopters, heavy tanks, land mines, special forces and I guess drones too now but I don't know how successful smaller armies' drones are, like the Iranian drones for example

light tanks don't appear on that list, and it seems like many of those projects have failed because adapting lighter frames into tanks have ended up in perpetual development

I have no idea how well ground-based anti-air and missile interception systems work, although my guess is the former are pretty good and the latter much less so

I'd be willing to suggest that many of the light tank projects fail because of MIC rot and grift and ballon up till their usless. Like if you want a light tank, take the Bradley its half way armed as one, take out the carrying capacity enlarge the turrent for a bigger gun space that was for carrying dudes now has space for ammo, up armor it so can not explode the second an ATGM looks at it ans you've got what the army wants. Now maybe its more complicated than I imagine so thats why that hasn't happened, or they can't think of a way to bilk the government out of more money like they could with a whole new system with a whole new logistics train

Real hurthling! posted:

they should make planes like in ace combat that can carry 72 giant missiles

They should make an Ace Combat anime, come on Bandai do it cowards

# ? Sep 17, 2022 00:51

Real hurthling!: Sep 11, 2001

isnt bradley too tall for a tank? or was that merkava? one of them i know is famous for being too tall and begging to get its squad rocketed

# ? Sep 17, 2022 00:54

Malleum: Aug 16, 2014; Am I the one at fault? What about me is wrong?; Buglord

the ifv is a concept that is going to be much larger than a tank kind of inherently, because it has to cram 10 people in there instead of 3 or 4, but the bradley is ludicrously large even compared to its contemporaries

# ? Sep 17, 2022 01:10

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 26, 2024 16:58

Danann: Aug 4, 2013

KomradeX posted:

I'd be willing to suggest that many of the light tank projects fail because of MIC rot and grift and ballon up till their usless. Like if you want a light tank, take the Bradley its half way armed as one, take out the carrying capacity enlarge the turrent for a bigger gun space that was for carrying dudes now has space for ammo, up armor it so can not explode the second an ATGM looks at it ans you've got what the army wants. Now maybe its more complicated than I imagine so thats why that hasn't happened, or they can't think of a way to bilk the government out of more money like they could with a whole new system with a whole new logistics train

bmp-3s somehow fit a clown car's worth of weaponry so maybe i'll look at how they made that work

# ? Sep 17, 2022 01:14

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > The US will lose WW3

«‹›605 »