|
DJJIB-DJDCT posted:I would love to know how much of this equipment was even maintained after 2001 and is compatible with all of the armour kits and sensors that were tacked on during the GWOT https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCnx0_TKVNE&t=2651s This bit of the interview (timelinked) talks a bit about the amphibious crossing and I sort of can't get over the fact that the crews perceived it as simple and straightforward.
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2024 00:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 22:59 |
|
|
Zeppelin Insanity posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCnx0_TKVNE&t=2651s This bit of the interview (timelinked) talks a bit about the amphibious crossing and I sort of can't get over the fact that the crews perceived it as simple and straightforward. I don't think even digging out the parts from whatever warehouses they're in would be simple or straightforward today.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2024 00:10
|
|
|
Yeah. What we've seen so far from the Russian army is that even with equipment and doctrine adding far more emphasis on their requirement to be able to advance west across rivers, for the most part we've seen them crossing wet gaps with bridging assets, and even then it has sometimes gone catastrophically. Russia used both bridging and ferries to try sustain their hold on Kherson, but it's still just really, really hard to sustain pontoons and ferries and logistics when the crossing and engineering assets are getting shot at by artillery, even on an intermittent basis. And a few times we've seen pontoon bridges getting destroyed or repelled during the conflict. But also Russia has a LOT of bridging assets, so it's not like they lost their one special bespoke river team or something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2024 00:16
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:But also Russia has a LOT of bridging assets, so it's not like they lost their one special bespoke river team or something. Which I think was what you were being pressed on vis a vis NATO in the earlier exchange.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2024 00:22
|
|
|
DJJIB-DJDCT posted:Which I think was what you were being pressed on vis a vis NATO in the earlier exchange. Nah, it was a bad argument that the western dogbrain thought bridges were bad, with the evidence of that assertion being: NATO conducting a training exercise with a formation that does both bridging and ferrying... If the argument was that NATO needs more bridging than it has, I'd agree with that argument. They likely just latched onto the fact that this particular exercise used one of the special NATO units that can do both bridging and ferrying as opposed to only doing one or the other. The US has its own standalone bridging and ferrying units on top of NATO forces, but NATO planners probably should not count on getting those assets from the US, given that the US tends to send forces all over the world rather than having those forces explicitly dedicated to NATO-only ops. Similarly, other nations within NATO have bridging assets, but they're not necessarily NATO units under NATO C2.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2024 00:40
|
|
|
bedpan posted:just make everything amphibious. no bridges or ferries needed! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIj7udMoKXs&t=136s 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2024 00:52
|
|
|
if you think ferries are cool then I have a bridge to sell you
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2024 00:53
|
|
|
Chinese Javelin practice https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82m3wqQtCQY
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2024 01:05
|
|
|
The Minecraft pattern building rules. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2024 01:09
|
|
|
That's clearly just a NATO building in UCP
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2024 01:10
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/BNONews/status/1766245777569955998?t=WspiIl8XfSXb-UWBHPcg4g&s=19
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2024 03:03
|
|
|
that'll buff out
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2024 03:04
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:https://twitter.com/BNONews/status/1766245777569955998?t=WspiIl8XfSXb-UWBHPcg4g&s=19 it kinda looks like that blob fish: sad and deflated
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2024 03:05
|
|
|
tf were they flying in that weather for
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2024 03:09
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/FxWoessner/status/1765147090252906555 mini tank buddies for everyone
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2024 03:09
|
|
|
OctaMurk posted:if you think ferries are cool then I have a bridge to sell you
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2024 05:07
|
|
|
I’m a bit blown away by the working class white people of Chicago, of all places, in this video. By today’s standards, half of then would be “crazy leftists” https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oeeA-IU45pc
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2024 05:55
|
|
|
Was it this thread or the Ukraine thread were we talked about the US being unprepared for how costly a peer air war actually is? Because I was just reminded of something I read earlier this week where a guy was talking about how he had a harder time connecting to Masters of the Air, vs Band of Brothers jjst for how relentless, grim and unavoidable all the deaths were why Band of Brothers was more dramatically satisfying with their deaths. Like fighting Iraq for 20 years has really hosed with our preceptions and I think in a way history has been revised to reflect that to where people downplay our air losses.in Vietnam. It really has lost all touch with reality
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2024 05:57
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:Was it this thread or the Ukraine thread were we talked about the US being unprepared for how costly a peer air war actually is? Because I was just reminded of something I read earlier this week where a guy was talking about how he had a harder time connecting to Masters of the Air, vs Band of Brothers jjst for how relentless, grim and unavoidable all the deaths were why Band of Brothers was more dramatically satisfying with their deaths. Like fighting Iraq for 20 years has really hosed with our preceptions and I think in a way history has been revised to reflect that to where people downplay our air losses.in Vietnam. It really has lost all touch with reality Think how unprepared the Brits were for Crimea, and that was when their power was on the rise, and only a few decades after fighting a real peer conflict.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2024 06:52
|
|
|
In the book Black Hawk Down, Mark Bowden mentions how in a conversation with Colin Powell, a Vietnam veteran, Powell points out that if only a "mere" 19 US military personnel were killed in one battle in Vietnam, the Pentagon wouldn't have even bothered to hold a press conference for such "minor" losses, unlike the one they held in 1993 after the Battle of The Black Sea/Mogadishu. Political support for heavy, sustained casualties isn't there anymore in most democracies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2024 08:28
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:On the fires side, the army has returned to divisional fires, increases the size of many of the rocket artillery battallions by ~50% (so similar number battalions, but significantly more launchers and people per battery and bn supporting divisions), increased GMLRS production numbers, upgrading existing MLRS and HIMARS, and is fielding the precision strike missile program, which gives army units organic capability to fire out to 500+ kilometers. Separately, GMLRS-ER extends GMLRS from about a 70km+ range to 150km+ Okay so they're doctrinally preparing for the obvious and learning lessons there, and they seem to have taken seriously upgrading MLRS systems, but otherwise they haven't actually been able to deploy many of the systems their doctrine is supposedly working to address? They have a capability goal to meet but their timeline is just like, "when its done" or something? So they know what to do, but they're just not going to do it and they're going to throw money at programs they're barely going to produce (if at all). Inspiring. I strive to match this level of loving off at my job and I don't get paid a quarter of what these consultants do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2024 09:37
|
|
|
GoLambo posted:Okay so they're doctrinally preparing for the obvious and learning lessons there, and they seem to have taken seriously upgrading MLRS systems, but otherwise they haven't actually been able to deploy many of the systems their doctrine is supposedly working to address? They have a capability goal to meet but their timeline is just like, "when its done" or something? So they know what to do, but they're just not going to do it and they're going to throw money at programs they're barely going to produce (if at all). Inspiring. I strive to match this level of loving off at my job and I don't get paid a quarter of what these consultants do. I think they know they have a problem, the issue is that they can't help but put that the most complex and cost prohibitive path available, especially one where the supply chain is an huge issue. It isn't more advanced MRLS/tactical missile systems are useful, obviously, they have seen plenty of use during this war. It is getting rid of "cold war" tube systems, that is a very bad idea. Even if your MRLS system is going to outrange cold war tube systems, you need the tube systems to hammer the frontline on a consistent basis. You need thousands, if not tens of thousands, of rounds per day hitting the other side if you want to generate mass numbers of casualties. A high end MRLS system may be good at hitting some supply dumps or other soft targets, but you need the other side as well. The reason they are doing it though isn't that they are just incompetent, it is just much easier to sell a single tactical missile for millions, they tens of HE ammo. It is more efficient from a business perspective. Also, as far as bridges and amphibious operations go, you really just want both and a ton of engineering equipment. You want to have that flexibility. The BMP, for example, was never designed for sea or littoral operations, but push comes to shove it could (with training and maintenance) ford a river to maneuver around an enemy position. It is also a reason why if the army in the east collapsed, it wouldn't take long before Russian forces would start trying to ford parts of the Dnieper then set up pontoon bridges against a greatly weakened AFU. Even the battalion+ of BMP 1s that Ukraine had lost trying to counter-attack the Russians north of the donets river had their tactical usefulness, it just the Ukrainians were careless with them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2024 10:17
|
|
|
There's an argument that with an expected island hopping campaign, naval blockades, very long distances between islands (so you might be being hit by missiles from other islands from far away) and limited sea access for supply, that having missiles with a 100-500km range like GMLRS-ER/ PrSM in HIMARS, or a remotely operated ground launched NSM like the Marines NMESIS program (yes, it's spelt NMESIS, not NEMESIS lmao), or a Tomahawk/SM-6 launch system like the Dark Eagle will be more useful in that scenario. HE shells can't reach out 100+km and distance in the South Pacific is a huge problem. Having said all that, at the moment, all of those missiles simply aren't being made quick enough, and aren't being procured in large enough numbers, so uh, that's kind of a doozy... You absolutely need a vast, vast, vast amount of HE artillery shells and the ability to maintain/produce artillery shells at a high rate, that's been repeatedly proven in Ukraine. I would imagine that they'd be very helpful on an island duking it out with defenders (assuming there's no constant missile bombardment from another island a long distance away), and maybe on Taiwanese soil itself. Of course, getting the HE shells physically there by sea/air from a long distance in a heavily defended environment, or doing it regularly without heavy losses is a very tough ask. Even if the US back-flipped tonight and went "No more ground launched missiles, ever again for the Army & Marines, it's all only HE shells from now on baby, let the factories crank them out 24/7!", they'd still face those issues. Not having a land border with several friendly neighbouring countries surrounding your area of conflict to resupply is a bitch.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2024 10:46
|
|
|
GoLambo posted:but their timeline is just like, "when its done" or something? the duke nukem forever of military reorganization
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2024 10:58
|
|
|
Livo posted:There's an argument that with an expected island hopping campaign, naval blockades, very long distances between islands (so you might be being hit by missiles from other islands from far away) and limited sea access for supply, that having missiles with a 100-500km range like GMLRS-ER/ PrSM in HIMARS, or a remotely operated ground launched NSM like the Marines NMESIS program (yes, it's spelt NMESIS, not NEMESIS lmao), or a Tomahawk/SM-6 launch system like the Dark Eagle will be more useful in that scenario. HE shells can't reach out 100+km and distance in the South Pacific is a huge problem. Having said all that, at the moment, all of those missiles simply aren't being made quick enough, and aren't being procured in large enough numbers, so uh, that's kind of a doozy... It makes some sense, you want longer range missiles to hit other islands etc etc in a strategic environment. I would say the problem is how these jells with the Marines and island hoping campaign in a tactical sense. If anything, a HIMARS system would probably be more vulnerable in a beach landing and it would detract from its main asset which is long range coupled with maneuverability. Also, the Marines without tub artillery or armor isn't isn't going to be useful in a land war. Basically, you have an entire branch that is suppose to take some atolls in the SCS, a sea where the Chinese are in all honesty, probably going to have naval and air supremacy if not now at least a couple years from now. It isn't that they aren't useful, but I just don't think they are a replacement for the Marines' older systems. It seems like a concept that was never fully thought out. At least the old Marine Corps could be thrown in the battle and do some damage. Also, the US is suppose to be pivoting to China and everything while openly picking a fight with the Russians and a possible fight with the Iranians and its allies. So while the Marines I guess are now completely a Indo-Pacific force, what is the Army going to be doing considering it is also being picked to pieces? Ardennes has issued a correction as of 11:45 on Mar 9, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2024 11:15
|
|
|
DJJIB-DJDCT posted:I’m a bit blown away by the working class white people of Chicago, of all places, in this video. By today’s standards, half of then would be “crazy leftists” It’s so frustrating to hear how close these people were to Getting It but couldn’t quite put all the pieces together.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2024 11:45
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:It’s so frustrating to hear how close these people were to Getting It but couldn’t quite put all the pieces together. Probably because it didn’t quite framing isn’t the one we have now, even if working class people knew they were getting the shaft, in reality they still had it better in many ways than now. They had rightful complaints but there was a reason they didn’t want to topple the entire system. In 1970, working class Americans, especially white ones, had skin in the game. Also, a big part of neoliberalism has been just to paper over every critique so no can find a common narrative against it. Arguably, certain things were clearer to them but they also still had a reason not to go full Marxist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2024 12:54
|
|
|
bedpan posted:just make everything amphibious. no bridges or ferries needed! All soldiers are trained to swim therefore the entire army is already amphibious, no bridges or ferries needed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2024 13:29
|
|
|
GoLambo posted:Okay so they're doctrinally preparing for the obvious and learning lessons there, and they seem to have taken seriously upgrading MLRS systems, but otherwise they haven't actually been able to deploy many of the systems their doctrine is supposedly working to address? They have a capability goal to meet but their timeline is just like, "when its done" or something? So they know what to do, but they're just not going to do it and they're going to throw money at programs they're barely going to produce (if at all). Inspiring. I strive to match this level of loving off at my job and I don't get paid a quarter of what these consultants do. I don’t know where you came to that conclusion. Divarty came back years ago and is in use now. HIMARS battalions have already been expanding and growing years ago. Precision strike missile began development a few years ago as a concept and is now fielded in limited early operational capability capacity. GMLRS production is up to about 166% of what it was a few years ago and on plan to be about 233% of what it was in 2022 by 2025. GMLRS-ER (150km range GMLRS) is not yet fielded but is doing well in test and evaluation. JAGM is fielded now, today, thousands have been built. For years now the training center has been forcing units to behave as if they have less air power and more exposure to enemy air and missile threats and upping the opfor capability in that realm. The two areas where I’d say the army has been slowest: 1. their inability to decide where they want to go with tube artillery (seems to be a lot of debate about new rounds vs platform still, so it’s still in development and test cycle while they try to figure which way to go) 2. They know where they want to go with new advanced air defenses and some of the sub components have worked great, but as a collective system, the new ground based air defense systems as a whole had been delayed a few times during test and evaluation. The outlier is that the army did field several new short-range tactical air defense formations, which continue to be fielded and stand up both in Europe and conus. Everyone wants to go fast, but it would be even more unbelievable if the army just announced a new concept and said “ok all done, we’re all ready and modernized” in just a few years. There’s a balance between plodding and slow and hubristic overselling of readiness for a new fighting concept and doctrine. E: the army's big debate about artillery is more about new guns and round types. What is already decided and worked via contracts was a decision to increase basic 155mm HE shell production by about 700%+. That increase in production is over 250% now, might hit 400-500% by fall of 2024, and 700%+ by 2025. Which should probably be faster, but considering the effort began in late 2022, they're reacting to their own poor estimates of shell requirements. Europe is a bit more interesting because there's a lot of pledging but if you don't actually pay for a factory to make things, the factory doesn't make the things. mlmp08 has issued a correction as of 15:15 on Mar 9, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2024 15:06
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:
Let me solve this mystery: 105mm, 155mm, 175mm, 203mm. Anything else is Pentagon politics or the MIC loving around. and for    105mm, 114mm, 140mm, 203mm. Please make me Director, Land Systems (Artillery). I just saved NATO several billion dollars. DJJIB-DJDCT has issued a correction as of 15:56 on Mar 9, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2024 15:53
|
|
|
DJJIB-DJDCT posted:Let me solve this mystery: 105mm, 155mm, 175mm, 203mm. 122mm, 152mm, 203mm, 305mm
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2024 16:07
|
|
|
DJJIB-DJDCT posted:Let me solve this mystery: 105mm, 155mm, 175mm, 203mm. that’s not the problem, they’re all in on 105 and 155 in particular. More that they’re waffling on whether it’s feasible and worth it to send 155mm out to 70km.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2024 16:17
|
|
|
The point is to make the artillery more expensive, not less.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2024 16:22
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:that’s not the problem, they’re all in on 105 and 155 in particular. More that they’re waffling on whether it’s feasible and worth it to send 155mm out to 70km. If only there was a larger calibre designed for guns, not gun-howitzers, with that kind of reach... perhaps one with projectiles specifically designed for that kind of performance...   But no, let's keep trying to stretch out a French WW1 calibre to the absolute limit of ballistics, that's definitely a good and sustainable project. NATO would rather ignore sectional density and internal ballistics than go to therapy 😒 DJJIB-DJDCT has issued a correction as of 16:26 on Mar 9, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2024 16:24
|
|
|
DJJIB-DJDCT posted:If only there was a larger calibre designed for guns, not gun-howitzers, with that kind of reach... perhaps one with projectiles specifically designed for that kind of performance... The 203mm class cannons cannot reach close to 70km, go reread your gunnery tables.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2024 16:31
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:The 203mm class cannons cannot reach close to 70km, go reread your gunnery tables. That's 175mm, 203mm is a howitzer calibre in land use. 8 inch guns are huge, like railway gun huge.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2024 16:51
|
|
|
Again, check your artillery tables again. Do you think 175mm goes 70 km or do you just think it’d be neat to have?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2024 17:03
|
|
|
Lol are you seriously telling that person that you know better than them about this
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2024 17:06
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Lol are you seriously telling that person that you know better than them about this ot sgould be very easy for frosted flakes to name the artillery system he’s talking about that goes 70km. Instead he jeeps naming stuff in the 30-40km range. Usually when he wants to argue about gun tables he provides evidence, but this time he’s inferring existence of something but refusing to show any evidence for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2024 17:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 22:59 |
|
|
You're more than welcome to run a calculator comparing the form factor of 175mm projectiles against 155mm Apologies for the lousy scans,   and here's the comparable 155mm  The 175mm was achieving 33km without rocket assist or base bleed at a time when the most impressive 155mm guns (not howitzers) could barely crack 20km. Trying to extend the range of 155mm because of the quest for a universal gun(-howitzer) rather than using the last true gun in the US inventory is... to put it mildly, a tremendous waste of resources. There is no reason to struggle against the upper limits of internal and external ballistics and gun carriage design, rather than, get this - simply using a larger projectile with better ballistics. DJJIB-DJDCT has issued a correction as of 17:29 on Mar 9, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2024 17:20
|
|