The US will lose WW3

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

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

mlmp08 posted:

We took long walk to get from the claim above stated as fact to here, to a wholly different claim:

We�ve all heard a planner or student come up with some wild and misinformed idea. We usually don�t state those as facts of current ops the way you did before walking it back.

Gottim....?

# ? Mar 16, 2024 09:49

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 25, 2024 05:11

Comrade Koba: Jul 2, 2007

yet again mlmp08 fails to provide formal academic or industry citations to refute the claim that his brain in fact consists of liquid dogshit. how very curious. i�ll let everyone draw their own conclusions.

# ? Mar 16, 2024 10:07

Zeppelin Insanity: Oct 28, 2009; Wahnsinn
Einfach
Wahnsinn

Incidentally - and this might be apocrypha, but it was relayed to me by a pretty hardcore enthusiast of Soviet aviation - supposedly there was a very "successful" wargame held in the Soviet Union once.

The general playing Soviets managed to completely clown on NATO in Europe much faster than the most optimistic projections. Something like 3 days. Then he got yelled at and told that they will absolutely not be doing it this way and he needs to not bring up ideas like that.

His idea was to get all the civilian aero clubs, put their pilots in armed trainer aircraft, and send them in as the first wave. Then send the real airforce in after about an hour behind, now that NATO air defences have been found, and have expensed most of their ammunition.

Now this very well could be false, since the story is a little too good, and a little too much like a mirror of the Millenium Challenge, but it's a fun story.

# ? Mar 16, 2024 10:40

Zeppelin Insanity: Oct 28, 2009; Wahnsinn
Einfach
Wahnsinn

Zeppelin Insanity posted:

Incidentally - and this might be apocrypha, but it was relayed to me by a pretty hardcore enthusiast of Soviet aviation - supposedly there was a very "successful" wargame held in the Soviet Union once.

The general playing Soviets managed to completely clown on NATO in Europe much faster than the most optimistic projections. Something like 3 days. Then he got yelled at and told that they will absolutely not be doing it this way and he needs to not bring up ideas like that.

His idea was to get all the civilian aero clubs, put their pilots in armed trainer aircraft, and send them in as the first wave. Then send the real airforce in after about an hour, now that NATO air defences have been found, and have expensed most of their ammunition.

Now this very well could be false, since the story is a little too good, and a little too much like a mirror of the Millenium Challenge, but it's a fun story.

# ? Mar 16, 2024 10:41

Cerebral Bore: Apr 21, 2010; Fun Shoe

drat, actual plane wave tactics

# ? Mar 16, 2024 10:43

Ardennes: May 12, 2002

It reminds me of the paragliding Hamas forces at the start of the Gaza War, something that sounded completely bonkers and stupid until it happened. That said, nowadays you probably just send in hundreds of armed jet powered drones.

One of the biggest faults of the Russians as simply wasting their element of surprise in order to go soft on the Ukrainians. You could argue this was because of political reasons, but clearly, in a full scale conflict, the Russians probably would have had the Ukrainians far more at their mercy, especially if they went for C&C directly and kept the Ukrainian Air Force on the ground.

It is kind of why Finland, Poland, and the Baltic states are in a bit of a tricky pickle since a pre-emptive attack would be so devastating to all 5 since their capitals and numerous critical facilities are in close strike range while Russia is just going to have far more depth.

Ardennes has issued a correction as of 11:07 on Mar 16, 2024

# ? Mar 16, 2024 10:51

Zeppelin Insanity: Oct 28, 2009; Wahnsinn
Einfach
Wahnsinn

gently caress I did a quote not edit. Sorry, I'm not that arrogant lol

# ? Mar 16, 2024 11:29

Orange Devil: Oct 1, 2010; Wullie's reign cannae smother the flames o' equality!

Delta-Wye posted:

you can't be a real country unless you have a domestic tank design and an airline. it helps if you have some kind of a football team, or some nuclear weapons, but at the very least you need indigenously developed armored vehicles

I appreciate this sentiment but I think we've all learned the real standard here is being able to produce and properly supply your own artillery.

# ? Mar 16, 2024 11:42

Livo: Dec 31, 2023

stephenthinkpad posted:

Aus putting giant down payment for something they won't receive for decades is good for regional peace.

There's quite a whole mess about the delayed submarine procurement (we should have ordered a replacement a long time ago), the botched French deal & AUKUS being signed, along with AUKUS issues of giving sovereignty & imprisoning researchers for collaborating with their peers.

The Royal Australian Navy constantly bleated about AUKUS/nuclear subs being vital to us*, with the security situation declining very rapidly, so we needed them urgently. The RAN then ignored one reasonable option however. This was "A huge effort in building the subs was simply integrating the US combat system into the French design: we used US combat systems on our previous Collins subs & other surface vessels, so we're locked into that ecosystem. Wouldn't it be faster to get the French nuclear powered variant the French already use, just with the US combat system they've already been integrating for us?" The subs would still be late as we majorly stuffed around getting a sub replacement, but it should be faster than a massive political deal with the UK/US, right? I don't honestly know the answer, but apparently no-one has bothered to ask this question publicly. One would think someone has raised this topic?

A common argument is "French vessels use Low Enriched Uranium, so they'd have to be refueled every 10-15 years in France, whereas UK/US vessels use Highly Enriched Uranium which lasts for 20-30 years without needing refueling, once the HEU reactor is sealed, you're good. The Navy considers its subs to be strategic assets, so overseas refueling isn't an option". Very valid & reasonable point, but that then brings up the question of priorities. If getting nuclear submarines in the water as fast as possible is the top priority according to the RAN, why not simply have the first two subs be refueled once in France, whilst a massive effort is made to build up LEU refueling capabilities here, so that we can refuel later subs in Australia? Nope, the security situation is so bad/dire, we urgently nuclear subs yesterday...but it's also not so urgent we can just casually wait for a few decades to actually get them. Surely telling the RAN that overseas refueling is a thing just for the first one or two subs, and this will only happen once whilst we invest in refueling infrastructure, so deal with it, since we'll ultimately get them in service faster as they've been saying we need to, was an option?

* Diesel SSKs are indeed very, very useful in shallow waters, littoral seas & chokepoints like entrances to the Mediterranean, but unfortunately, their endurance is limited as they can only go about 8000 - 12 000 km before needing refuelling, and that's if they travel at slow speed: faster speeds burn into their range. Large battery storage or Air Independent Propulsion allow diesel subs to stay submerged a lot longer, but this doesn't help their endurance. This is a problem given that our trade routes are very far away, compared to countries like Sweden or The Netherlands. If we had several friendly ports in the region to refuel from, and forward based the subs up north, this would be less of an issue. This isn't really an option as there's limited areas for sub bases unless they're in the middle of nowhere, Brisbane/Darwin are within range of potential missile or air threats: hence why RAN subs have been historically stationed where they are.

# ? Mar 16, 2024 12:03

DJJIB-DJDCT: Feb 1, 2024

Comrade Koba posted:

yet again mlmp08 fails to provide formal academic or industry citations to refute the claim that his brain in fact consists of liquid dogshit. how very curious. i�ll let everyone draw their own conclusions.

# ? Mar 16, 2024 12:52

Zeppelin Insanity: Oct 28, 2009; Wahnsinn
Einfach
Wahnsinn

Another notable thing about the DPRK tank upgrade package:

This looks like a big honking slab of top-attack protection. It is not a Russian style tank hat (which have absolutely evolved to have ERA these days, incidentally), but it does show the Koreans are paying attention.

Also, the coupola weapon is not a machine-gun, it's an automatic grenade launcher. North Koreans like loading up their vehicles with a lot of firepower, which I think makes perfect sense considering the effort it takes to construct a vehicle in the first place. Their BTRs have anti-air missiles stuck to the side! And double high calibre machine guns instead of one big one small.

Meanwhile, Western Understanders:

Hinges, famous for being a thing you put on something that does not open.

How does the new tank, and its upgrade package, compare to competitors? That's extremely hard to say. For obvious reasons there is not a lot of information. However, it's very visible a ~~massive~~ great leap forward. Remember that Korea never got later Soviet or Chinese tanks: everything up to now was developed from T-62. (incidentally so were Chinese tanks, but still). This is clearly a much more modern design.

# ? Mar 16, 2024 13:59

DJJIB-DJDCT: Feb 1, 2024

Western tanks have covers too, they're usually just open for press photos. The reason being that electronic and optronic systems are expensive and fragile.

Sometimes I worry about these NAFO guys

# ? Mar 16, 2024 14:02

speng31b: May 8, 2010

DJJIB-DJDCT posted:

https://media1.tenor.com/m/nriUHGFZtL0AAAAC/jack-off-eyeroll.gif

# ? Mar 16, 2024 16:17

HouseofSuren: Feb 5, 2024; by Pragmatica

Zeppelin Insanity posted:

stuff

The F35 is the flying variant of the Bradley

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA

# ? Mar 16, 2024 18:29

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

Zeppelin Insanity posted:

Meanwhile, Western Understanders:

Hinges, famous for being a thing you put on something that does not open.

do they know there's other photos where that door is clearly open?

Tank may be bad, point is NK can still mass produce their own tank if they want, the UK can't. We just got rid of the last forges that could make quality steel. We're either going to have to keep upgrading the Challanger 2, which is a fat pig tank that can gently caress off, or finally give up and buy Leopard 2's

Sad!

# ? Mar 16, 2024 18:42

Danann: Aug 4, 2013

option number 3 is to buy american obv

of course it may become the only option for the west these days

# ? Mar 16, 2024 19:04

DJJIB-DJDCT: Feb 1, 2024

Regarde Aduck posted:

do they know there's other photos where that door is clearly open?

If I was NK, and the west was always trying to determine the military balance, I would not let them get a good look at the exact optics fitted to my newest MBT, to be frank.

# ? Mar 16, 2024 20:40

Zeppelin Insanity: Oct 28, 2009; Wahnsinn
Einfach
Wahnsinn

DJJIB-DJDCT posted:

If I was NK, and the west was always trying to determine the military balance, I would not let them get a good look at the exact optics fitted to my newest MBT, to be frank.

There's definitely lots of staged photos with the covers open.

Something my tankie friends noticed that they found interesting is you can't really see weld or panel lines on that tank. Which probably means that effort has been made to conceal the lines. Those lines could have been used to make educated guesses about armour composition and thickness.

# ? Mar 16, 2024 20:48

Zeppelin Insanity: Oct 28, 2009; Wahnsinn
Einfach
Wahnsinn

jesus christ phone posting makes me double post with a quote of myself

# ? Mar 16, 2024 20:49

DJJIB-DJDCT: Feb 1, 2024

Zeppelin Insanity posted:

There's definitely lots of staged photos with the covers open.

Something my tankie friends noticed that they found interesting is you can't really see weld or panel lines on that tank. Which probably means that effort has been made to conceal the lines. Those lines could have been used to make educated guesses about armour composition and thickness.

This is called "being smart", and I wish we lived in countries that practiced it. Having said that, as long as they have access to the Warthunder forums in NK, they're all set.

# ? Mar 16, 2024 20:50

Tankbuster: Oct 1, 2021

gradenko_2000 posted:

https://twitter.com/un_a_valeable/status/1768734724279640288?t=M4CbcoY_OulDYt1c0j6WlQ&s=19

now THIS is tank destroyer doctrine!!!

Why aren't we talking about this?

# ? Mar 16, 2024 20:53

Facehammer: Mar 11, 2008

Zeppelin Insanity posted:

There's definitely lots of staged photos with the covers open.

Something my tankie friends noticed that they found interesting is you can't really see weld or panel lines on that tank. Which probably means that effort has been made to conceal the lines. Those lines could have been used to make educated guesses about armour composition and thickness.

I look forward to hearing from the most reputable OSInt accounts on twitter that these tanks are made of cardboard and moved around by a team of 3 slave-soldiers running on a big hamster wheel inside it while making vroom-vroom noises to impress tourists. If they don't make good enough engine noises then everyone in the town they grew up in is executed by being launched out of a circus cannon into a volcano.

# ? Mar 16, 2024 21:05

Megamissen: Jul 19, 2022; any post can be a kannapost
if you want it to be

Tankbuster posted:

Why aren't we talking about this?

i dont know enough about tank destroyers to see whats special about it

# ? Mar 16, 2024 21:28

Justin Tyme: Feb 22, 2011

Megamissen posted:

i dont know enough about tank destroyers to see whats special about it

Sherman hull with a firefly gun, it's a very special and very good little boy

# ? Mar 16, 2024 21:32

Raskolnikov38: Mar 3, 2007; We were somewhere around Manila when the drugs began to take hold

Megamissen posted:

i dont know enough about tank destroyers to see whats special about it

its a sherman model thats been stugified

Raskolnikov38 has issued a correction as of 21:36 on Mar 16, 2024

# ? Mar 16, 2024 21:32

Raskolnikov38: Mar 3, 2007; We were somewhere around Manila when the drugs began to take hold

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CZWKr8_8C4

# ? Mar 16, 2024 21:33

Delta-Wye: Sep 29, 2005

Raskolnikov38 posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CZWKr8_8C4

good tank, thanks

# ? Mar 16, 2024 21:43

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

Raskolnikov38 posted:

its a sherman model thats been stugified

The Shermgeschutz

# ? Mar 16, 2024 21:46

Grilled Beef: Oct 27, 2023

https://www.businessinsider.com/cost-key-us-weapons-artillery-shells-for-ukraine-is-soaring-2024-3?amp

The cost of key US weapons like artillery shells for Ukraine is soaring

quote:

* The US Army estimated the costs to maintain the guided Excalibur shell nearly doubled in a decade.

* Excalibur was one of many crucial weapons that saw big jumps in the costs to operate.

* The cost to maintain a weapon is more than twice the cost to build it, a GAO official said.

Maintenance costs have risen for many US weapons, including some crucial systems by Ukraine or likely to be deployed in a conflict with China.

In particular, operating and support costs for the M982 Excalibur � a GPS-guided 155-mm artillery shell supplied to Ukraine � nearly doubled between 2011 and 2022 to roughly $100,000 per shell, according to a Government Accountability Office report.

Such problems are baked into the military procurement system. The sticker price of a weapon, such as a jet fighter, only reflects a fraction of what it will cost to maintain that weapon over its lifetime. "Operating and support (O&S) costs historically account for approximately 70 percent of a weapon system's total life-cycle cost, which is the cost to operate and sustain the system from initial operations through the end of its life," GAO explained. "Included in the costs are repair parts, depot and field maintenance, contract services, engineering support, and personnel, among other things."

"On average, DOD spends more than twice as much to operate and support a weapon system than it spends to develop and build it," Diana Maurer, director of GAO's defense capability and management team, told Business Insider.

Even to accurately assess these costs can be a problem. The Department of Defense was required to report on 25 Army, Navy and Air Force programs. However, GAO only received adequate data for 16 of them. Of those, seven had critical O&S increases. This meant a weapon either experienced a 25% increase in operating and support costs over cost estimates in prior years, or at least a 50% increase since the weapon was originally fielded.

Related stories

The Army estimated that O&S costs for the Excalibur � first deployed in 2007 � had soared 183% since a baseline estimate in 2011. The Army blamed the increase on two factors: buying more shells than originally anticipated � which in turn raised maintenance costs � and hardware and software upgrades such as "advanced positioning and navigation technologies." The cost for Excalibur has been estimated at around $100,000 per round, compared to about $3,000 for an unguided 155-mm shell.

Interestingly, GAO declined to specify the number of Excalibur shells acquired because "DOD deemed the information sensitive." The US began supplying Ukraine with Excalibur rounds in fall of 2022, and Ukrainian gunners were quite pleased with the precision-guided shells that could hit vital Russian targets � such as headquarters and supply dumps � from 25 miles away. Massive Russian GPS jamming may now have reduced the accuracy of GPS-guided weapons such as Excalibur and HIMARS rockets, but these munitions did prove quite useful in disrupting Russian logistics, and command and control.

In addition to Excalibur, other weapons that experienced sharp rises in maintenance costs were the Navy's EA-18G Growler electronic warfare aircraft (up 219% since 2003), F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet fighter (179% since 2012) and the Navy Multiband Terminal satellite communications system (647% since 2012.) For the Army, the Common Remotely Operated Weapon Station registered a 335% increase since 2017, the Tactical Mission Command-Maneuver Control System up 464% since 2008, and the Warfighter Information Network-Tactical Increment 1, up 32% since 2007.

As any automobile owner knows, maintenance costs for a vehicle rise over time as aging components need to be replaced, and the price of those parts grows with inflation. And calculating what is a reasonable increase is tricky for military equipment. Sustainment reviews are a fairly new practice for the Department of Defense, and for older equipment � the F-22 first flew in 1997 � it can be hard to say that maintenance costs are higher than originally estimated decades ago.

"Frequency and intensity of use can become a factor over time, especially for aviation and naval platforms," Maurer noted.

Still, all this does raise the question of whether higher maintenance costs for US military equipment at least partially result from problems with design and manufacturing. "We don't know the specific extent of O&S cost growth due to design problems or poor sustainment management," Maurer said. "In some respects, those problems could lower O&S costs because systems cannot fly, operate, or sail as often as planned. Of course that also means a bad return on investment for the taxpayer. We definitely want to see good designs and good sustainment strategies."

But going forward, these maintenance reports should provide clues as to whether a weapon is costing more to maintain than it should. "Over time, as DOD continues to issue these reviews, Congress and the public will have greater ability to hold the Pentagon accountable for the costs to operate weapon systems," Maurer said.

also enjoy all the embedded ads for �The CIA version of khakis�, per Forbes magazine

# ? Mar 16, 2024 22:06

Justin Tyme: Feb 22, 2011

I dig the concept of last ditch Sherman casemate tanks and now curse history that they weren't made

They're roomy inside! The Jumbo was tailor made to be one!

# ? Mar 16, 2024 22:26

mlmp08: Jul 11, 2004; Prepare for my priapic projectile's exalted penetration; Nap Ghost

The Su-85/100 look better than that weird sherman, even if it's roomy in there.

# ? Mar 16, 2024 22:35

Danann: Aug 4, 2013

gradenko_2000 posted:

https://twitter.com/un_a_valeable/status/1768734724279640288?t=M4CbcoY_OulDYt1c0j6WlQ&s=19

now THIS is tank destroyer doctrine!!!

BR 7.7 Tank Destroyer.

7.3 if we're being generous.

# ? Mar 16, 2024 22:36

Slavvy: Dec 11, 2012

Justin Tyme posted:

Sherman hull with a firefly gun, it's a very special and very good little boy

Likely vastly more useable for the crew than a regular firefly

# ? Mar 17, 2024 00:20

Z the IVth: Jan 28, 2009; The trouble with your "expendable machines"; Fun Shoe

Didn't the US have a bunch of tank destroyers that had open top turrets?

# ? Mar 17, 2024 00:30

Justin Tyme: Feb 22, 2011

Danann posted:

BR 7.7 Tank Destroyer.

7.3 if we're being generous.

No loving way it's 7.7 in 2024 that's like M47/M48 Patton BR now

BR 5.0 premium, but solid shot only

# ? Mar 17, 2024 00:34

DJJIB-DJDCT: Feb 1, 2024

You guys realize Priest and M10 were both on the Sherman hull?*

*Don't loving @ me about them technically using M3 hulls either. I am not pulling up R. P. Hunnicutt to go over the minor differences in the drivetrain and suspension.

# ? Mar 17, 2024 00:35

Cuttlefush: Jan 15, 2014; gotta have my purp

mlmp08 posted:

The Su-85/100 look better than that weird sherman, even if it's roomy in there.

perhaps mlmp08 can be reformed after all

# ? Mar 17, 2024 00:41

DJJIB-DJDCT: Feb 1, 2024

Cuttlefush posted:

perhaps mlmp08 can be reformed after all

Let's not be hasty.

# ? Mar 17, 2024 00:41

Cuttlefush: Jan 15, 2014; gotta have my purp

DJJIB-DJDCT posted:

You guys realize Priest and M10 were both on the Sherman hull?*

*Don't loving @ me about them technically using M3 hulls either. I am not pulling up R. P. Hunnicutt to go over the minor differences in the drivetrain and suspension.

ok, get this. sherman hull. abrams turret.

# ? Mar 17, 2024 00:43

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 25, 2024 05:11

Justin Tyme: Feb 22, 2011

DJJIB-DJDCT posted:

You guys realize Priest and M10 were both on the Sherman hull?*

*Don't loving @ me about them technically using M3 hulls either. I am not pulling up R. P. Hunnicutt to go over the minor differences in the drivetrain and suspension.

*Pounds fists on table* casemate Sherman dude!!!

If u got a turret or an open top, get out!!!

# ? Mar 17, 2024 00:43

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

«‹›604 »