(Thread IKs:
fatherboxx)
|
Rust Martialis posted:A single battery will apparently have a mix of -2 and -3 interceptors for just such occasions (Not singling you out, your post just made me think of this) It’s been semi-confusing for me, but I remembered that artillery (and by extension, US air defense artillery, who are the ones with Patriot systems) uses “battery” in place of “company” as their organizational unit with like 3-4 platoons/headed by a captain. I’m not sure that any news orgs are actually making that distinction, but a patriot “battery” intercepting a missile could be spread out over a wider area and have their own detection assets forward of their deployed positions. It makes a little more sense to me thinking of it that way, rather than a single patriot truck getting a lucky shot on a fast/low cruise missile.
|
#
?
May 8, 2023 12:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 09:02 |
|
|
Icon Of Sin posted:(Not singling you out, your post just made me think of this) A patriot battery has one fire control radar and one engagement control station. Patriot as it exists today is essentially incapable of air defense operations when disaggregated below the battery level. Tuna-Fish posted:Correct, but the PAC-3 upgrade was specifically about turning the system into a dedicated anti-ballistic missile defense system. Patriot is designed to detect and engage cruise missiles, anti-radiation missiles, tactical ballistic missiles, fixed-wing aircraft, unmanned aircraft, and rotary-wing aircraft. mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 13:04 on May 8, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2023 13:02
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:A patriot battery has one fire control radar and one engagement control station. Thanks, I was trying to dig through an FM to get actual details but my eyes were glassed over fairly quick.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2023 13:10
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Patriot is designed to detect and engage cruise missiles, anti-radiation missiles, tactical ballistic missiles, fixed-wing aircraft, unmanned aircraft, and rotary-wing aircraft. So what you're saying is "anything between a quad-rotor drone and one of the city-killer ships from Independence Day."
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2023 14:27
|
|
|
 (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2023 14:39
|
|
|
Moon Slayer posted:So what you're saying is "anything between a quad-rotor drone and one of the city-killer ships from Independence Day." Wikipedia: "Since the PAC-3 ground units can control both M901 PAC-2 launchers and M902/M903 PAC-2/PAC-3 launchers, Patriot batteries employ a mix of PAC-3 hit-to-kill active missiles and PAC-2 GEM-T blast fragmentation warhead semi-active missiles to counter both ballistic missile and aircraft threats." So, yes.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2023 14:44
|
|
|
LifeSunDeath posted:
Gwb being far more talented artistically than I could ever hope to be really kinda ruined my day, ngl (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2023 15:54
|
|
|
I guarantee if you find yourself with some free time in retirement you too could learn to paint a lopsided depiction of Putin (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2023 15:58
|
|
|
LifeSunDeath posted:
slavsya strana, my gordimsya toboy (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2023 16:37
|
|
|
Shut up about George Bush paintings what the hell
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2023 16:51
|
|
|
fatherboxx posted:Shut up about George Bush paintings what the hell George Bush is literally worse than Hitler... ...at painting.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2023 17:06
|
|
|
fatherboxx posted:Shut up about George Bush paintings what the hell Lol this took me by surprise, is this like our goku feet
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2023 18:58
|
|
|
Just wanna say thanks for modding this Crazytown after so many other mods have been driven mad. Good luck comrade.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2023 20:44
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1655284232720113665?cxt=HHwWgoCz2aqP4PgtAAAA So more Ukrainian franken weapons being made. Any idea why you would convert tanks into up-armored IFVs?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2023 23:38
|
|
|
There’s plenty of precedent back to the Kangaroo, the BTR-T and the Achzarit and more recently the Namer. You can stick ERA on it and make it proof against small auto cannons and pretty decent sized ATGMs, which has obvious advantages. The downside is they have the logistics tail of a tank and the mobility of a tank. The Israelis are fond of them for their urban operations, but the PLO doesn’t have modern top-attack ATGMs for the most part.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2023 23:52
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:There’s plenty of precedent back to the Kangaroo, the BTR-T and the Achzarit and more recently the Namer. You can stick ERA on it and make it proof against small auto cannons and pretty decent sized ATGMs, which has obvious advantages. The downside is they have the logistics tail of a tank and the mobility of a tank. The Israelis are fond of them for their urban operations, but the PLO doesn’t have modern top-attack ATGMs for the most part. I've always figured that the anti tank weapons currently in use are effective against the tanks in service, are not in short supply, and are used against tanks and IFVs alike. So it's unclear if there's a specific need for a more heavily armored IFV to cover some gap or if this is just a creation of convenience (not enough IFVs and you have tank hulls but not enough tank ammo?).
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2023 23:58
|
|
|
It looks like they’re making a home brew BMPT Terminator. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMPT_Terminator
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2023 00:24
|
|
|
WarpedLichen posted:https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1655284232720113665?cxt=HHwWgoCz2aqP4PgtAAAA Because a terrible tank is still a great IFV; you need a lot of optics and weapons systems for a tank, plus survivability. An IFV just needs some armor to resist small arms and some mobility.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2023 00:27
|
|
|
China is looking at deploying their own heavy (but batshit insane) IFV also. https://www.armyrecognition.com/wea...tegory.amp.html Weighs 50 tons, can come with a 100mm main gun as well as a 30mm… Also conveniently armed with 2 remote machine guns in the rear, and also 2 fuel barrels directly above the exit hatch…
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2023 00:33
|
|
|
Morrow posted:Because a terrible tank is still a great IFV; you need a lot of optics and weapons systems for a tank, plus survivability. An IFV just needs some armor to resist small arms and some mobility. ...and some space to actually transport troops, no?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2023 00:38
|
|
|
Freezer posted:...and some space to actually transport troops, no? I think this is less about troop transport and more about troop support.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2023 01:11
|
|
|
Freezer posted:...and some space to actually transport troops, no? Finally, I understand the reference
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2023 01:58
|
|
|
WarpedLichen posted:I've always figured that the anti tank weapons currently in use are effective against the tanks in service, are not in short supply, and are used against tanks and IFVs alike. So it's unclear if there's a specific need for a more heavily armored IFV to cover some gap or if this is just a creation of convenience (not enough IFVs and you have tank hulls but not enough tank ammo?). short supply is relative, but there's a big emphasis on both sides at all levels of not using more tool for a task than is required because you do really want to have the fancy stuff for the situations where it is needed. tends to also be a big awareness of 'are we firing 150k missile at a 25k piece of equipment.' that's just militaries in general though
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2023 02:18
|
|
|
WarpedLichen posted:I've always figured that the anti tank weapons currently in use are effective against the tanks in service, are not in short supply, and are used against tanks and IFVs alike. So it's unclear if there's a specific need for a more heavily armored IFV to cover some gap or if this is just a creation of convenience (not enough IFVs and you have tank hulls but not enough tank ammo?). More the latter than the former, would be my guess. Keep in mind a lot of territorials were running around at the beginning of the war using private motorized transport and while Ukraine has gotten a lot more battle taxis of various degrees of obsolescence, there's no way they come close to filling all the need for their mobilized forces.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2023 03:09
|
|
|
Effort-post on the US Army's NGSW program in the context of what we're learning from the War in Ukraine The US Army is busy replacing its squad-level small arms (the M4 carbine and the M249, a light machinegun) with the M7 rifle and M250, respectively, as part of the Next Generation Squad Weapon (NGSW) program. I think the War in Ukraine largely validates this program's goals. The Army has toyed around with replacing the M16/M4 since at least the early 2000s. They spent a ton of money, but evaluations never showed materially different capabilities. Current Capabilities. Yes, the numbers for the M4/M16 are conservative. Good shooters can hit targets a bit further, but for Private Shmedlamp, the ranges below are good for planning purposes.
New Capabilities By comparison, the NGSW systems use a 6.8mm cartridge. This has greater range and--perhaps more importantly--greater penetration at much greater ranges. They also come with a freackin' fire control system. It's simliar-ish to those used on Western tanks since the 1980s. Laser your target, and the reticle moves to where you should shoot. The thing takes into account wind, temperature, humidity, etc.
What the hell does this have to do with Ukraine? Ukraine is demonstrating every day that dispersion is one key survival mechanism, even for infantry in the trenches. Clustered squads and platoons are just asking for artillery. Additionally, modern armies are just smaller than those of the early 20th century, but some potential conflict zones--such as Eastern Europe--are big. I've read several accounts of a Ukrainian platoon covering a 1km front. That's about 20 soldiers. Now, you don't spread out evenly: 1 x Private Shmedlamp every 50m doesn't work in practice. Different soldiers have different weapon systems (grenade launchers, light machineguns, rifles), different experience levels (you want Newbie Shmedlamp next to Sergeant Eats Nails), terrain gets in the way, and so forth. So you tend to deploy in fire teams (3-5 soldiers) or squads (7-12 soldiers). Let's say your platoon has 3 x squads. If those squads can only reach out and touch someone 300m away, that let's your platoon (barely) cover a 1km front. Put them 300m away from each other and they can mutually support each other, but not very well. If Squad 1 is getting assaulted, the squads on their right and left can help if the enemy gets within ~100-150m of their position (although only if the enemy comes from the front, and to both sides of Squad 1). That's dicey, because you're well within danger-close for friendly artillery. I hope Squad 1 sees the enemy early! Now double the range to 600m, and make it more accurate besides. What does that do? That lets the same platoon cover the same 1k front, but the entire platoon can support any element in contact. They can also suppress the enemy over 1km away: far outside of danger-close for friendly artillery. Alternately, it lets you disperse with more confidence. Maybe you break squads into fire teams and spread out a bit more to protect against drones and artillery. It's okay, because that fire team 200m away from you can still put a lot of accurate fire down to support you. Extra range--when its accurate--is a big, big deal, even in infantry fights. The additional penetration is also useful in urban combat. 5.56mm just isn't going to punch through a lot of common building materials. 6.8mm will. So what are the downsides (apart from cost, etc.)? The biggest downside is ammunition. 6.8mm is heavier and bulkier than 5.56mm. A number of Ukrainian and Foreign Legion types on video are running around with 40-round magazines instead of the usual 30-round magazines. They're not doing that because they like lugging around a heavier rifle: they're doing it because not having to swap magazines is helpful. That may be because less-trained troops will tend to consume ammunition more rapidly. Full-automatic is a natural reaction to contact, and requires training and discipline to not do.* The lower capacity (20-round magazines, versus 30-round) and lower total ammunition carried (because it weighs more) may be an issue. I expect the US is counting on infantry using robots and light wheeled transport to carry additional ammunition very, very close to the soldiers who need them. If you're in defensive positions, you can pre-position ammunition and not lug it around on your body. We'll see how this plays out in practice, though. * In my first contact, one of my machine gunners let off a 200-300 round burst. (You're supposed to shoot 6-9 rounds at a time).
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2023 03:20
|
|
|
Has there been any test footage of 6.8 vs Level IV? Im kind of pessimistic from what Ive heard, tbh
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2023 03:31
|
|
|
How practical is trying to support friendly squads 300m away though with the equipment carried by infantrymen? Can people regularly see 300m out much less spot guys moving around trying not to be seen? I have seen a lot of combat footage in Ukraine and it seems they might not see past 150m in many directions from what they show on their cameras.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2023 03:50
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:New Capabilities The fire control stuff sounds nuts though.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2023 03:52
|
|
|
Budzilla posted:Amazing that the British wanted a similar round in the 50s and the US vetoed that idea and went with the fill rifle 7.62 cartridge and later on with the 5.56 and now this. Well that was more that the US brass wanted a full power round because more powwwer. The Europeans got the FAL while the US settled on the heavily flawed M14. The M16 and the 5.56 came about because of how badly the M14 and 7.62 performed in action. Honestly the British had the recipe right with the bullpup and 6.8 way back then. The optics are crazy secret sauce. I am still skeptical in terms of them actually being able to produce them en mass and them performing as well as they claim in the field. Though having an optic and suppressor as standard on every rifle will be huge even if the more advanced features don’t end up working as well as advertised.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2023 04:57
|
|
|
Djarum posted:Well that was more that the US brass wanted a full power round because more powwwer. The Europeans got the FAL while the US settled on the heavily flawed M14. The M16 and the 5.56 came about because of how badly the M14 and 7.62 performed in action. What makes optics so special compared to iron sights. Most of the time you can’t actually see what you’re shooting at, right? Like the dramatic short range videos we see of people mag dumping into Russians at the trenches or the defense vids where you see 2-3 guys shot at close range are supposed to be the exception rather than the rule. Most of the time I think you’re shooting in the general direction and by the time you find the bodies nobody actually knows who killed them. By the way I’d love to know what the Ukrainians think of the M240/FM Mags they’re being issued and whether they like their AK-74s vs the M4s and FNCs I’ve seen some of them carry. Kraftwerk fucked around with this message at 05:21 on May 9, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2023 05:18
|
|
|
MikeC posted:How practical is trying to support friendly squads 300m away though with the equipment carried by infantrymen? Can people regularly see 300m out much less spot guys moving around trying not to be seen? I have seen a lot of combat footage in Ukraine and it seems they might not see past 150m in many directions from what they show on their cameras. I produced this handy infographic to illustrate how large a 1.8 meter human being appears at certain ranges.  Of course, things like cover, camouflage, and environmental conditions like smoke or fog will effect how well you see someone at these distances: I remember that the big thing about tiger stripe camo in Vietnam was that it helped conceal around 50m and beyond from contact in jungle terrain.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2023 05:19
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:... the good stuff... Been looking forward to this. 
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2023 05:45
|
|
|
Henrik Zetterberg posted:So assuming the single Patriot battery shot down one of these missiles, what happens if they shoot 5? That makes them an Ace.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2023 06:15
|
|
|
MikeC posted:How practical is trying to support friendly squads 300m away though with the equipment carried by infantrymen? Can people regularly see 300m out much less spot guys moving around trying not to be seen? I have seen a lot of combat footage in Ukraine and it seems they might not see past 150m in many directions from what they show on their cameras. The new optic is a 1-8x modular zoom scope that integrates a combo IR/visible aiming laser, detects when 1x is selected and switch's to a red dot, has a full ballistics computer, environmental sensor suite, compass, and laser rangefinder that interfaces with the fire control system Ynglaur mentioned, meaning you aim at your target and press a butan and half a second later you have a digital targeting point to hold your reticle over, and it also connects to a squad net that can share markpoints designated through the scope to the rest of the squad. Oh, and the modular aspects means upgrades, additional capabilities, and other secret sauce can be straightforwardly integrated into the scope in the future. And if all of that wasn't ridiculous enough, it's an etched scope so even with no battery power, it's fully functional as a plain analog 1-8x scope. Here's a long form video from Vortex themselves covering everything about it that's not classified. This piece of kit is seriously badass. I hope Canada picks up this optic for our armed forces, lol, lmao https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7NLMU1JZkY
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2023 06:44
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:What makes optics so special compared to iron sights. Most of the time you can’t actually see what you’re shooting at, right? Like the dramatic short range videos we see of people mag dumping into Russians at the trenches or the defense vids where you see 2-3 guys shot at close range are supposed to be the exception rather than the rule. Most of the time I think you’re shooting in the general direction and by the time you find the bodies nobody actually knows who killed them. Optics, especially modern optics, make it much, much easier to acquire and hit a target accurately. With a Red Dot for example after it is zeroed in basically where you point that dot at you hit. You couple that with magnification and you greatly increase your effective range. So you are taking valuable seconds away with using one compared to using iron sights and increasing accuracy. What makes the fancy new optics on the new US rifles so game changing is it takes all the guess work out of zeroing your sight. Instead of having to estimate distance and compensating for elevation and windage the optic does all that for you, again making the individual much more likely to hit their target on the very first shot. The means they are more lethal, using less ammunition and much more likely to survive a firefight. Another thing that isn’t being talked about is the suppressor which is using nextgen 3D printing technology to make it much more quiet, lighter and cheaper to produce than traditional suppressors. The whole package is effectively video game stuff from even a few years ago. The fact that it all works even in a controlled test environment is incredible. It is light years ahead of anyone else and I don’t see anyone else being able to get there anytime soon.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2023 06:51
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:What makes optics so special compared to iron sights. Most of the time you can’t actually see what you’re shooting at, right? This is just stuff I read on these forums so I hope somebody can confirm/deny: When the US started getting red dot scopes on M4/M16s, there was an uptick in accuracy, with stories later from Iraqis/insurgents/whatever-drat-it-got-complicated dismayed that the Americans were making a lot of snap headshots suddenly.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2023 08:15
|
|
|
Djarum posted:Optics, especially modern optics, make it much, much easier to acquire and hit a target accurately. With a Red Dot for example after it is zeroed in basically where you point that dot at you hit. You couple that with magnification and you greatly increase your effective range. So you are taking valuable seconds away with using one compared to using iron sights and increasing accuracy. even the difference between iron sights and something basic like a red dot is incredible. you wouldn't think it would be a big difference but, and forgive the extremely american example, a literal child can pick up an AR with a red dot and be hitting cans from 30 meters without any training. it's incredible how much each step up of optics does for making guns easier to use and more effective. e: already answered by more knowledgeable people Kraftwerk posted:What makes optics so special compared to iron sights. Most of the time you can’t actually see what you’re shooting at, right? Like the dramatic short range videos we see of people mag dumping into Russians at the trenches or the defense vids where you see 2-3 guys shot at close range are supposed to be the exception rather than the rule. Most of the time I think you’re shooting in the general direction and by the time you find the bodies nobody actually knows who killed them. nah that thing is a big deal if it works anywhere close to as good as it appears to and they can make enough of them to have them widespread among people in combat roles. it's not just that it lets people be effective at long range, it's intended to basically let people who have no training in long range shooting consistently and even easily hit shots that otherwise they'd need some significantly specialized training. There's also knock-on effects where doubling infantry range on paper roughly halves the amount of people required to cover a given line of contact. Hell, you can not halve the number of people in an area except now twice as many fighting positions can mutually support, los depending. More range also gives more freedom wrt where people set up positions and ultimately changes how they can fight. As long as wars are still being fought on foot, having a significant range advantage is a big deal and indeed you see that prioritized at every scale. Oversimplifying a bit, but if one group can hit effectively from 700m and the other group has nothing reliably effective past 400-500m, then the former group can set up an ambush at ranges where they can't be effectively counter-engaged except by heavier weapons or air/artillery. it's basically a firing computer like you'd find in a tank or an AFV except scaled way the hell down so it can fit on an individual rifle. It's a pretty wild capability to add to individual soldiers, though it also isn't for every situation.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2023 08:38
|
|
|
From what I've read it seems pretty cool for long range shooting. I admit I'm a bit concerned about urban warfare or trench clearing, as we've seen Ukrainians often have to do, since the gun setup is heavier and has fewer bullets per magazine.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2023 08:45
|
|
|
Lukashenko looking like a prisoner at Moscow victory parade https://twitter.com/nashaniva/status/1655834826656628737?s=20 Seemingly he was forced into attending, all previous rituals in Minsk that he was announced to be doing got cancelled last minute.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2023 09:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 09:02 |
|
|
No wonder Kremlin "kindly asked" for his attendance. There were whooping 7 countries represented, and noone outside of former USSR.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2023 10:01
|
|
