f945f8 No.542825
Can we make some educated guesses what's coming next?
>less/no more conventional wars
>more assymetric wars/insurgency, CT
>tanks no longer useful
>artillery no longer useful
>fighter aircraft replaced by drones
>bombers replaced by drones
>fewer but more capable infantry (maybe with exoskeletons)
Thoughts/opinions?
54c6ff No.542827
>>542825
>less/no more conventional wars
Once the USA loses its status as the world police we will see more wars, not less.
>>more assymetric wars/insurgency, CT
I think this whole conventional/non-conventional duality is false to begin with. Insurgencies are just budding civil wars, even if the side opposing the government is dependent entirely on foreign support. At this phase you need the police and secret services to get rid of the insurgents. Once you really have to call in the regular army you are in a civil war. Just look at Syria and Ukraine.
>tanks no longer useful
MBTs will certainly need new design philosophies due to all these new technologies, but tanks outside of cities will be still a good and useful thing.
>artillery no longer useful
If anything artillery will be even more useful now. Just read this document.
>fighter aircraft replaced by drones
>bombers replaced by drones
It's more likely that AA systems will make physically big aircraft useless, and instead the future is UAVs used to direct artillery fire.
>fewer but more capable infantry (maybe with exoskeletons)
Infantry will mostly fight inside cities, as artillery will be able to destroy all large and slow formations out in the open. In this context think of cities as fortresses you have to besiege. You can either surround them and wait for the defenders to starve out; or you can charge in with guns blazing, but then expect a lot of causalities. In a city I think it's better to send in less infantrymen at the same time, but keep a big reserve behind them, both to replace the fallen and to send in an other wave when the first one is tired after hours of fighting. This way you can keep the pressure on the enemy, but it requires more infantry, you just don't deploy all of them at the same time.
98d98a No.542830
f945f8 No.542833
>>542827
Why would america lose their status as world police anytime soon?
Regardless, big wars won't happen because nukes.
860f31 No.542834
>>542825
>artillery no longer useful
Probably the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
98d98a No.542835
>>542833
More like big wars will get started with nukes.
54c6ff No.542839
>>542833
>the whole ISIS affair is over, Syria and Iraq are now indebted to Russia and Iran
>coalition forces somehow managed to start losing ground in Afghanistan
>although Russians lost Ukraine (for now), they still managed to snatch Crimea and lock Ukraine in a perpetual conflict
>Norks managed to became a nuclear power, despite all those oh-so-harsh words coming from the USA
>China is gaining more and more influence in basically everywhere
>meanwhile the USA is more and more divided, and a strong foreign policy needs strong support
I don't want to make wild predictions, but at this rate the USA will either go out with a bang or with a whimper. The former can be a few different things:
>losing a war against Iran
>setting the Korean peninsula in fire and failing to put it out
>a civil war of some sorts
>a series of uprising in Europe that might lead to American intervention
>something else entirely
The later is just being constantly cockblocked by the rest of the world.
f945f8 No.542842
>>542839
None of those scenarios will ever play out.
You underestimate how much people in power want to stay in power.
>war against iran
didn't happen in the past when things looked far more grim, won't happen now
>muh korea
kim likes his life too much to risk it over some shitty war
>civil war
not unless >90% of americans are threatened by starvation or something equally dire
>uprisings in europe
lmao, uprisings? in europe?
the only uprising would be a muslim takeover of scandinavia which no one would oppose because muh racism
Your only valid point is china gaining ground in africa, australian and SEA but it won't lead to war either
54c6ff No.542844
>>542842
Did you only read half of my post, or is my grasp of this language is still far too weak, and I wrote something that is easily misunderstood? All those things I wrote belong to the bang scenario. If it's not a bang, then it will be a whimper. China taking over Australia and Canada belongs to the whimper scenario, which won't result in an open conflict. So, yes, that won't lead to a war, but it will still weaken the USA's position as the one and only global player.
f945f8 No.542845
>>542844
What is your estimate on the timeframe for your scenarios to play out?
54c6ff No.542849
>>542845
It's hard to make predictions when the supposed supreme leader of the most important player is replaced in every 4-8 years, and usually by somebody who promises to do the exact opposite of his predecessor. Keeping that in mind, I guess the president after Trump will be seen as impotent by the rest of the world, even if it will be really Oprah, and in 2020. I think we should keep an eye on the current would-be revolution in Iran to see how strong America really is nowadays.
c1e84b No.542859
>>542825
The future of warfare is a full fledged mechanized war in Europe.
Planes are largely obsolete (let alone drones) with modern radar technology and AA, the chair force (and their (((industry backers))) ) just don't want to admit it.
Artillery is more than ever relevant (and will become either electromagneticrail-gun or electrothermochemical-gun) as it's the only way any sort of defense can be mustered against scram-jet missiles.
The aircraft carrier should lose nearly all relevance and we should see only two types of capital ships:
-A return of the dreadnought as it should be possible to withstand the scramjet AShM warhead you can't intercept with modern composite/reactive armor technology since they're mostly HE and can't really benefit from an AP warhead (not necessarily cause critical damage).
-The amphibious assault ships with rotary wings and amphibious assault party, the swiss knife of power projection.
f945f8 No.542861
>>542834
>>542859
How is arty, a large static target, still relevant in the age of drones/superior airpower?
54c6ff No.542863
>>542859
>either electromagneticrail-gun or electrothermochemical-gun
I think CLGG is a lot better than either of those.
>>542861
Did you know that during the first world war the Brits made an artillery piece quite mobile by putting it on a tracked chassis? That idea might have some merits to it.
f945f8 No.542866
>>542863
Shitposting aside, how will your arty outrun a hellfire missile?
54c6ff No.542869
>>542866
>Hellfire has a range of 8km
>2S35 Koalitsiya has a range of 70km
>Pantsir-S1 has a range of 20km
>S-400 AA system has a range of 400km
Put the SPGs 20-30km behin the front line, park some Pantsirs next to it, and whatever you intend to use to fire the Hellfire will have to fly into AA fire. Put the S-400 100km behind those two, and even jet planes will have a good chance to be destroyed. Moreover, the Koalitsiyas and Pantsirs are both mobile, so the SPGs can shoot-and-scoot and still be escorted by the AA firepower. Therefore even detecting them will be a problem.
000000 No.542872
>First combat-viable exoskeletons built, /clang/ers try to fuck them resulting in heavy maintenance from scrubbing off all the semen, maintenance downtime leads to critical battles being lost, opposing armies' exoskeleton wearers film themselves teabagging fallen opponents, leading to so much buttrage that the leadership skips the rest of the conventional conflict and goes straight to nuclear war
>Triggering opinions and material cause massive logistical failures when supply personnel who got into the army because diversity hang themselves, robots cannot be brought online fast enough to replace them because NEETs who live in their basements hack the supply robots and make them play Achy Breaky Heart at max volume, leading to numerous military personnel going insane
>Space warfare becomes an important part of war, military satellites and space cruisers are built and then destroyed immediately when some guy fires a bunch of garbage into space and random debris from it slams into the satellites at relativistic speeds, bringing them down right on top of vital production facilities
>Genetic manipulation makes people able to become furries, Star Fox becomes real, G-Diffuser technology revolutionizes aeronautics, furry lobby elects Krystal lookalike the first female President of the United States
>Cybernetics gets big, key military and political officials are replaced by robots or hacked through cyborg implants and give spoofed orders to divert all forces from strategically important areas to aid in shipping 10 billion tons of cocaine and ice cream to Charlie Sheen's house
>VR is a thing, waifus become real, nobody is interested in war or 3DPD women anymore, 3DPD hags start a war in response but are unable to build exoskeletons that work for any purpose other than augmenting the user's sandwich-making skills, so they start filing sexual assault charges against every single enemy soldier instead, resulting in America being unable to fight and losing all its power
8f5e10 No.542876
>>542825
We will likely never see any large-scale campaigns against nuclear powers. Any sort of invasion would be a superpower versus an underdeveloped nation in which said underdeveloped nation is to be steamrolled, or two underdeveloped nations with the support from superpowers. Most of the human effort will be channeled into intelligence gathering, espionage, and SPECOPs. Warfare won't be cool again unless you either go to a third-world country or wait for Independence Day.
14ef7f No.542881
>>542835
>More like big wars will get started with nukes.
Are you retarded by any chance?
Nukes will give you the awesome ability to rule over irradiated rubble defeating the purpose of every war other than over ideology.
98d98a No.542884
>>542881
>landlings actually believe a bunch of blown up cities matter when we live deep under water and on the moon
d79be2 No.542896
>>542833
death of petrodollar
it already happened, in a way
c1e84b No.542901
>>542861
>a large static target
>I have no idea how arty works.
Most modern (read non-burger) SPG can fire, pack up, leave, long before their shells hit the ground.
>>542866
>how will your arty outrun a hellfire missile
Nothing capable of firing an Hellfire missile will come close.
Even with current gen SHORAD (TOR, Crotale, etc…) it's extremely dubious an helicopter can sneak upon anything.
Daily reminder that last time the US army engaged a lot of combat helicopter doing "search and destroy" against an actual army, it was in Iraq 2003 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_attack_on_Karbala
and they got assfucked by a handful of 1950's flak guns and tank roof AA machineguns. One SHAORAD and it would have been a bloodbath.
>>542869
Pantsirs aren't really meant for that well they can do it too since Russia likes it's air bubbles to nicely overlap, but it's a TOR job.
Panstirs are a point defense system their job is to intercept the hellfire more than shooting down the helo firing it… (I don't know if they can shot a hellfire, probably not but their job are cruise missiles, drones and PGMs).
f945f8 No.542904
>>542901
>One Apache crashed immediately after takeoff when its pilot became disoriented.
Jesus how did the burgers ever win a single war?
6cbb8c No.542909
>>542904
You don't have to be good to be the best. :^)
40ea2e No.542923
Most Tanks have now got shot traps due to how composite armour works which basically absorbs shots rather than letting them bounce.into the weaker part of the Tank and letting it penetrate.
Rubber is quite a bouncy material.
Do you think the future we will see Rubber Tipped Discarding Sabot rounds to give it a chance to bounce into the weaker part of the Tank?
I was thinking springs but I think that might make the shell bounce back towards whoever fired the round.
260131 No.542939
>>542830
Not unless we loose this atmosphere or start taking warfare to space.
>>542923
Steel is more bouncy than rubber.
c1e84b No.543069
>>542904
Same way Britain ever did. By systematically attacking enemies at their lowest or enemies much weaker than them, then touting it as a great victory to give out an illusion of power.
I mean the US used to take pride they had invaded Grenada to pretend they were 1:1 with soviets (VS Vietnam).
>Send a MEU agaisnt a militia with 8 BTR 60
>Same as losing the entire Asia which WWII was fought about.
Oh and as usual the Delta Farce fucked up, crashed and had to be rescue…
Seriously read up about Grenada it's awesome.
>Be SEAL.
>Be BESTEST soldiers of the USA.
>Attack place unhindered.
>OH NOES an enemy platoon (1 APC), what a gigantic threat!
>Call in an airstrike.
>Still there.
>Call in an AC-130.
>Still there.
>call in two Cobra attack helicopters.
>Still there
>Call in the marines.
>Marines shows up with 13 AAV and 5 M60.
>They don't fired a shot. Can't find the enemy (neither dead or alive). Later find a BRDM and blow it up.
It's still better than crash landing but still, when your best soldiers are bested by the most basic USSR vehicle manned by 3rd worlders, you write an epic tale about it.
It's not new, it's what Cesar did.
549ce7 No.543070
>>542923
That's right up there with Canadian water armor.
6958e7 No.543084
>>542923
>Tanks firing rubber tipped APFSDS rounds at armoured targets.
Would there be any way to ensure that hits would create a decent 'boing' noise? At that point they might as well issue tank crews elongated boots, red noses, and clown make up.
13a5d0 No.543087
>>543084
War has changed, hyuk hyuk!
6958e7 No.543090
>>543087
>Special forces infiltrate hostile logistics base.
>Carefully leave all doors ajar with a bucket of water resting on top.
>Fill every sleeping mans boots with custard.
>Set up the brand new ACPPS-X (automated cream pie projection system - experimental) in the hall outside the barracks.
>Before they exfiltrate they top the OP off with their calling card - a whoopee cushion on the commanding officers office chair.
13a5d0 No.543096
>>543069
The military epic of the beta American and chad Grenadian has been cruelly misinterpreted by historians, but I'm here to even the odds with you, Frenchman.
c5cc10 No.543113
>>543084
That would greatly enhance the performance of APCs.
c1e84b No.543132
>>543096
You could do the same with "Delta Farce VS a palmtree".
b99ff2 No.543144
>>543090
>2088
>be militiaman in afghanistan
>americans intervene
>one of their tanks parks near our compound
>our imam radios in and says to destroy it
>jamal fires the old rpg32 at it
>hit
>all it does is go through
>tank flies gayly through the air as it deflates
>a trap! weve been flanked!
>as i take my first step hear loud splat next to me
>custard grenade explodes next to me and jamal
>jamal is diabetic, dies instantly
>hear loud woop woop woop as the americans breach the building im in
>the honking of their boots grows louder
>get up no time for jamal
>jump down, thank allah we are on a second floor
>try radioing in the position of the americans
>radio plays some corny trumpet music
>we've been jammed
>i keep running but trip
>"hee hee! see you next fall!"
>oh no
>a large clown decked in lime green webbing extends his hand to me
>confused and scared i grab his hand and get electrocuted
>he chuckles and says "oh no! what shocking turn of events!"
>i try getting up, but the clown has prepared his next move already
>a large cream pie with cherries lands on my face
>the clown chuckles uncontrollably giving me a chance to run
>not three steps in i slip with a banana peel
>fall pretty bad, breaking my leg
>"well isnt that humerus!"
>they call in their medics
>rest of compound must be taken over by now
>two white clad clowns arrive with a stretcher
>"hup hup hup hup!"
>they put me in it
>one says "oh dear me i dropped a nickel!"
>i fall from the stretcher and hit my head on a sharp rock
>die
d688ea No.543155
Crashing an enemy’s economy.
483a92 No.543163
Megacities will increasingly act in a city-state-like manner as the sheer enormity of their populations and economic footprints render them unassailable. The "monopoly on violence" held by the national and regional governments supposedly "above" these city-states is no monopoly at all when the city-state is effectively immune to every threat including nuclear weapons.
If a city like NYC or LA decided to behave like an independent city-state, the federal government would have no recourse as anything it would do to harm the city-state would cause equal or greater harm to itself. The trend of ever greater concentration of population and wealth in these cities renders them immune to outside influence. The scale of everything contained within their loosely defined borders is such that they are able to overwhelm whatever the outside world has to offer. Nuke them and the financial collapse destroys the rural/suburban economy. Siege them and the tens of millions of civilians can overwhelm any blockade and that displaced population will collapse the infrastructure of the outside world which isn't designed to handle any real population density.
Basically, the weapons future of warfare will be displaced civilians and the fight will be against humanity's emotions of empathy and sympathy.
86e689 No.543177
>>543174
No, it's just related to assholes, hemorrhoids and pretty damn good music
4afb25 No.543201
>>542825
>>542827
>less/no more conventional wars
>Once the USA loses its status as the world police we will see more wars, not less.
I agree, though it will not necessarily be based around the US, and not necessarily be "real" wars. There are simply wars where the US would have absolutely no interest in getting into. Not under democrat, or under republican rule. Not even Trump would pick a side most likely, since he is, despite what /pol/ may dream about, quite unpredictable.
Take Iran/Saudi Arabia as an example. Tensions are rising, and with Iran being backed by Russia, and Saudi Arabia being backed by Israel, it would be more likely for the US to join Saudi Arabia, but with the extreme aversion to any intervention, I am sure it would be political suicide to do anything but issue sanctions.
Pakistan/India is another such example. India is, an important trade parter to Europe, most of the natural resources besides Iron and rare metals come from India, but taking sides with India and stomping Pakistan into the ground would lead to another Afghanistan/Iraq like LOOKING war the entire part that Pakistan funds the insurgencies in Afghanistan is willfully ignored by a large part of the population which would cause upheaval. It would be over much quicker, but people would still be retarded enough to protest.
Same for Ukrain/Russia. Fucking with Russia is a bad idea. They are probably one of three opponents the US would have "trouble" defeating (China and Israel being the other two, and only China would hold an actual military edge against the US). Directly supporting Ukraine with troops in case Russia sent troops into Ukrain with clear national insignia, would probably lead to war between the US and Ukraine, which would again be political suicide.
>more assymetric wars/insurgency, CT
>I think this whole conventional/non-conventional duality is false to begin with. Insurgencies are just budding civil wars, even if the side opposing the government is dependent entirely on foreign support. At this phase you need the police and secret services to get rid of the insurgents. Once you really have to call in the regular army you are in a civil war. Just look at Syria and Ukraine.
I disagree fundamentally on this point.
"Asymmetric warfare" is simply war between two unequally matched sides. Be it the actual people fighting their government, or one massively superior nation fighting an inferior nation. The thing is that the inferior nation will HAVE to resort to guerrilla fighting. Guerrilla fighting doesn't mean IEDs, or snipers, it simply means that thee guerrilla will only engage in combat, when they believe that they have a good chance to inflict more damage than they will take. Read Fidel Castro's book about Guerrilla warfare for more info.
>tanks no longer useful
>MBTs will certainly need new design philosophies due to all these new technologies, but tanks outside of cities will be still a good and useful thing.
I have to agree. Tanks are not mainly tank killers, but they are extremely useful weapons against them. Their main priority is killing infantry using heavy machine guns sturdily mounted on weapon stations, and equipped with high quality optics. Even a 7,62x51mm gun can be effective at roughly 2000 meters when it is deployed this way. It is far more efficient than giving the same weapon to the infantry.
We have seen the efficiency of ATGM, that cost a couple ten thousand dollars, versus tanks that cost a couple millions. The turks showed us the wrong way to use them. Driving up to towns and KEEPING tanks in range of ATGMs is not a good idea.
>artillery no longer useful
If anything artillery will be even more useful now. Just read this document.
Artillery will never go out of style. It allows you to engage a target at great range as long as you know it's positions. It's essentially archery, but modernized.
>fighter aircraft replaced by drones
>bombers replaced by drones
>It's more likely that AA systems will make physically big aircraft useless, and instead the future is UAVs used to direct artillery fire.
Drones aren't really useful for fighter purposes. AI isn't at the level yet to properly visually identify and track targets that are maybe two pixels on a 360° camera, and move at a relative speed from 0.01minutes of angle to 180° in less than a tenth of a second, a human pilot can use intuition and logic. Unless we teach AI to properly dogfight which will be hard as shit, considering that every enemy fighter pilot has a different personality and different tolerances and quickly differentiate between a high flying bee from a fighter jet that whizzes by the optics.
4afb25 No.543202
>>543201
>fewer but more capable infantry (maybe with exoskeletons)
>Infantry will mostly fight inside cities, as artillery will be able to destroy all large and slow formations out in the open. In this context think of cities as fortresses you have to besiege. You can either surround them and wait for the defenders to starve out; or you can charge in with guns blazing, but then expect a lot of causalities. In a city I think it's better to send in less infantrymen at the same time, but keep a big reserve behind them, both to replace the fallen and to send in an other wave when the first one is tired after hours of fighting. This way you can keep the pressure on the enemy, but it requires more infantry, you just don't deploy all of them at the same time.
Infantry can and will never go out of style. Infantry is the entire purpose of war. You are trying to impose your physical power over an area where an enemy can currently impose their physical power.
If you don't have armed men in the area to do your bidding, then you don't control that area. If infantry is enhanced with spears, rocks, bows, or exo-skeletons. Hell, you can probably replace the human aspects of infantry with robotics all together using hilariously expensive and unreliable "bipedal drones, but infantry will still serve it's primary purpose.
c5cc10 No.543204
>>542861
>a large static target
Most artillery is self propelled nowadays, anon.
c5cc10 No.543205
>>542866
Are MBTs too supposed to outrun hellfires?
4afb25 No.543206
>>543205
No. They are supposed to shoot their main guns, and scoot back into cover, be it thick forests, or a solid smokescreen.
c5cc10 No.543207
>>542901
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_attack_on_Karbala
out of 31 Apaches
>1 Apache crashed
>1 Apache shot down
>29 Apaches damaged (2 beyond repair)
>2 pilots captured[3]
by 90 tanks and "Several hundred vehicles"
>only 12 tanks and 6 early cold war era AA guns taken down
That's pretty fucking humiliating.
4afb25 No.543213
>>543207
>2 damaged beyond repair
>+1 crashed and 1 shot down
So only 4 helos were lost. How many asses did they save?
I agree that a machine that employs turbines moving many hundred metal blades moving at hundreds of meters a second, to rotate another four larger metal blades at at a slightly lower speed, to create a lift force which must be carefully balanced to keep a construct of aluminum, steel, high octane fuel and many many hundred kilograms of weapons ammunition has a higher chance of failure than a land vehicle that will not crash and burn once it's engines fail.
Tanks are simply less of a glass gun than helos, but they lack the range, speed and overview of the battlefield a helo has.
b99ff2 No.543227
>>543207
I don't know, the article you linked sounds more like an intel and schedule fuck up more than general incompetence. Besides, even if a AA gun is old, I'm pretty sure they could absolutely shred any attack helo provided that they have visual.
c5cc10 No.543246
>>543227
We are talking about 2003 though, not the initial Gulf War. At that point Apaches should have much more advanced recon and situational awareness packs though I admit self-defense instruments are not particularly effective in telling you when a kebab is allahu ackbaring a gun at your general direction
Having 100% of your deployed $20+m armoured gunships torn to shreds by unguided guns from stationary mounts and freaking tank turrets manned by slightly more competent than average sandniggers is unfathomable; especially given the light casualties of the enemy, that could as well had been dealt by the payload of a single or a couple of Apaches, did not indicate particularly bold engagement.
611674 No.543249
>casualties and losses
<dignity
Allright,which one of you fuckers did this
bf337a No.543278
>>543213
>So only 4 helos were lost. How many asses did they save?
None. It was a 30 minutes engagement, they showed up to hunt a tank brigade, the brigade was properly on alert on defensive positions with the handful of AA they had available and cleverly coordinated a very simple barrage, they got mauled and immediately pulled back, all of them were damaged durably (out of the war, even if they were fixed, read rebuild, after shipping them back to the US. Worse they realized that some the injured crews where by SMALL ARMS, a fucking 7.62 AKM can fuck up an Apache. Cue the Havoc video getting shot by a 30mm point blank…) and the US army STOPPED USING THEM AS GUNSHIPS ALTOGETHER.
As in they admitted that the whole concept of gunships wings was dead, just as airmobile infantry died in Ia Drang.
Instead they only used them as very expensive recon/target designation assets, and occasional attack of the "opportunity target" (read alone and undefended), which a Predator could do better at a lower risk for a fraction of the cost (hence the US started seriously spending money in drones).
So yeah attack helicopters died a war ago, they're not in the future.
bfb20c No.543281
>>543087
>>543090
ss13 taught me everything i need to know
throw them out the airlock
13a5d0 No.543323
>>543278
>F-35 Lightning-II is replacing everything
>M1 Abrams is going to be the MBT until 2050
>god awful artillery & that's never going to improve
>infantry has always been complete garbage
>don't even get to have fun with attack helicopters anymore
What's wrong with America? Do all their generals have brain damage or something?
40ea2e No.543326
>>543323
Generals got replaced with (((Generals)))
e83e8d No.543397
>>543323
The MBT died ages ago (1973 Arab–Israeli War), when arab BMP-1s knocked out nearly 800 israeli tanks (out of a 1000)! Then it re-died in 1991 with US M2s being better at killing tanks than M1s.
The Russian concept of the IFV (AKA BMP in russian), something armored enough to go through artillery, with a decent gun to clear out infantry but with missiles capable of killing any vehicle (at a longer range than a MBT…) is the apex of mechanized warfare.
What does a MBT do that the future heavy ifv with a 40mm CTA (Europe) or 57mm caseless (Russia) and modern ATGMs can't do?
Lob HE shells? But you have artillery for that!
d79be2 No.543403
>>543397
>Lob HE shells? But you have artillery for that!
unless you are burger
f8f884 No.543406
>>542923
Is there some sort of meme here I am not getting?
067a40 No.543412
>>543397
The problem with modern MBT's is that they are overly fixated with taking on other MBT's at the expense of absolutely everything else. It is like that whoever designs Tanks these days think that infantry, bunkers, helicopters, light vehicles etc no longer exist. There is a lot to be said for going back to the 105mm or even a 90mm just to give that much more flexibility in munition types. The Mememetall for example is quite arguably the worst gun ever fitted to a modern MBT since literally all you got was an AT round and an AT round. For all everyone likes to shit on the Britbong Rifled Gun, it actually can deal with threats other than Tanks due to a better variety of actually useful munition types and it's performance against Tanks isn't actually all that worse than the Smoothbores.
>B-but m-muh smoothbore! Muh penetration!
Trading what is essentially an extra 50mm of penetration that will rarely make a difference with a SABOT round at the expense of being completely inadequate at dealing with soft targets is NOT a good tradeoff. It's shit that only armchair (((Generals))) find appealing who think that their Tanks will meet other Tanks of the same type in an open battlefield and that it won't result in a stalemate at long range. If this scenario were to ever happened in real life the first Commander to grow a braincell and order up some artillery or ATGM's will be the first to win.
>>543403
Fun fact, it took until based Poland to yell at Germany for being retarded until the Leopard 2 got HE shells. That's how dumb modern Tank design is.
>>543406
Basically 1st world countries that haven't seen proper combat in the past 50 years or longer that people like to circlejerk about how advanced their designs are read Germany and Israel introduced these large segments of spaced armor to the front of their Tanks that are designed to actually be penetrated easily and trap shots inside. They actually do work tremendously well against SABOT and HEAT based rounds and pic related was saved because of it while Leopard 2's in the same area without it got blown up.
However what everyone seems to assume is that the only thing that anyone will ever fire at them are large bore SABOT+HEAT rounds and ATGM's. It might be a bit hard to tell but what you can see from pic related they form massive shot traps so if you throw shit like HE or Autocannons at them, i.e. shit that will likely send shrapnel and derbies bouncing everywhere it's going to find somewhere where it can do some damage. That's preciously what lead to this Turkish Patton being abandoned as while it was not destroyed it was rendered inoperable since they couldn't turn the turret or much else of the Tank for that matter.
It's why if someone like Germany got into a proper war they may find their Tanks and crews saved but they vehicle itself will have to be abandoned since it will be rendered combat ineffective relatively easily. I'd like to point out here that Poland does not have this issue with their Leopard 2's since theirs are more advanced with a better thought out armor layout.
067a40 No.543415
>>543412
Another point I forgot to raise about the shot trap meme is that forums where faggots like to circlejerk over how amazing advanced Nip Tanks are and that the Leopard 2 is the best Tank evur have this illusion that shot traps no longer exist due to the nature of said spaced armor effects against SABOT and HEAT. Cause we all know that Tanks only face other Tanks right guize? :^)
As a rule of thumb anyone that gets hung up on how important that a Tank gun should be focused on taking on only other Tanks you can automatically drop as not knowing shit about Tanks or war in general.
Damn I fucked this post 3 times in a row. I think I need to take a nap
a20322 No.543416
>>543412
>Trading what is essentially an extra 50mm of penetration that will rarely make a difference with a SABOT round at the expense of being completely inadequate at dealing with soft targets is NOT a good tradeoff.
This tbh, especially when the majority of modern conflicts aren't between world powers anymore, so MBTs usually go up against soft targets most of the time.
0960cd No.543418
>>543069
The Frog is right, when you're the global power you invest so much of your military budget on power projection (i.e. the Navy and logistics) you actually neglect your other forces. Now that doesn't really matter since if you fuck up you can just ship in a second force one 'step' up in power until you crush your opponent anyway but you can never back down or the illusion of being able to strike anyone anywhere at anytime dies.
d79be2 No.543420
cant they just do different kinds of ammo for riffled barrels?
what about half riffled barrels?
pic unrelated i just like posting with pics
0960cd No.543421
>>542833
>Why would america lose their status as world police anytime soon?
It never seems likely until it happens anon. Most commonly overconfidence after defeating a key rival results in overconfidence and that results in losing a conflict somewhere else a few decades later. That leads to a slow but constant decline in regional influence/allies. That's how most Empires have died anyway: a lack of real opponents breeding complacency. Dramatically imploding is much rarer.
54c6ff No.543449
>>543397
I think you convinced me again that this is indeed the path forward.
>57mm caseless
Could you tell us about this?
a2d033 No.543459
>>542835
Unlikely because MAD. Nukes are only likely to be used against countries that don't have any of their own.
a2d033 No.543467
>>542939
>Not unless we loose this atmosphere or start taking warfare to space.
lasers are even more of a meme in space, they lose energy over distance per inverse-square law while solid projectiles retain all of their energy because there's no atmosphere to slow them down.
a61d6d No.543478
>>543467
The only valid weaponry in space are projectiles. Missiles are beyond useless since the amount of course corrections they would have to make means they would have to be mostly fuel and thrusters. Nukes also are extremely inefficient in space having a range of about 100m or so with all that energy going to waste and it's not like the radiation will be any worse than cosmic radiation.
d79be2 No.543479
>>543467
i believe the point of laser being used in space is that lasers need no ammo since they are powered by electriciety
ef233f No.543480
>>543479
They still will produce heat and that heat needs to dissipate which is big problem in space. Also spacecraft are currently heavily insulated against extreme thermals to the point that lasers would literally do nothing to them.
f2b029 No.543482
>>542859
>planes are irrelevant
Wrong!
d79be2 No.543484
>>543480
clearly the answer is to store produced heat and cool the systems off at nearest planet with atmosphere
and its still less hassle then managing logistics with limited space aboard
54c6ff No.543485
>>543482
>t. member of the Chairforce
0c6d66 No.543488
>>543412
Modern tanks are good: they are as armoured, fast, maneuverable, can cross difficult terrain, as modern technology allow, and can provide acurate direct fire on distances longer than typical line of sight on almost all terrains on Earth (desert included). Leopard 2 and Abrams seat on golden spot in firepower/mobility/armor triangle. Also Abrams get programmable MPAT ammunition, that can be used with different fuse settings as a "traditional" HE, structure busting, or against light vechicles.
But we must remember, that tank don't work alone: they should have IFV with infantry on their sides, artillery (ATGM, SPG, MLRS) behind, and recon (drones for example) overhead. Just like gopniks used their company, and battalion size combat groups in 2014 on Ukraine.
>>543323
US Army plan to have Abrams replacement by 2030.
749017 No.543490
Drone tanks and airplanes remotely controlled by overweight CS:GO players.
Also electronic warfare and viruses that attack critical infrastructure ie. stuxnet.
ef233f No.543491
>>543488
>MPAT
You mean the round that is getting phased out cause it's not that great against soft targets, not that great against hardened targets and virtually pointless against infantry?
The only MPAT's that are getting kept are ones that were redesigned for bunker busting and canister shot. MPAT in practice just doesn't have enough blast or fragmentation to be useful other than when configured to be a special snowflake round. All MPAT has been is a more expensive and worse HEP.
e83e8d No.543493
>>543412
>The Mememetall for example is quite arguably the worst gun ever fitted to a modern MBT since literally all you got was an AT round and an AT round.
French, Russian and Israeli tanks always had HE shells in their smoothbore.
It's the US army (and by extension the german army) that solely focused it's MBT on MBT warfare (not Rheinmetal, it was the US General Dynamics mainly because it had a long running pork barrel "researching" guided tank shells and other "silver bullet" rounds, siphoning billions into shit that went nowhere) by refusing to issue some going as far as pretend really hard that "it's impossible to have HE rounds with smooth-bore guns".
Smoothbore VS railed is a question of max velocity of the projectile and durability of the gun. In the day of the CAD it's piss easy to make work any type of warheads to either type of guns.
>>543449
>>57mm caseless
>Could you tell us about this?
Well they're clearly willing to put 57mm back in service (they officially asked for a replacement for the Tunguska around 57mm), problem is the round is huge so it's the obvious way to go (and I remember talks about a 57mm caseless experiment, can't track it down) if they want to have more than 150 rounds.
ef233f No.543494
>>543493
>it's impossible to have HE rounds with smooth-bore guns
I remember when I actually heard that line in the 90's. Everyone went "Really niggers?" since we just looked at all the other smoothbores in service. I think the exact line that they said they weren't developing HE for the Abrams was that "This gun fires at such a high velocity that an HE won't be that effective!" or some shit like that. The actual case was that developing rounds Tanks actually need was far too cheap and they couldn't extort gorrillions into pointless research.
067a40 No.543497
>>543488
>Leopard 2 and Abrams seat on golden spot in firepower/mobility/armor triangle
Actually they are far too heavy which makes them a pain in the ass for logistics, which is a problem facing a lot of modern MBT's.
And Tanks do indeed not work alone, unless you a Turkroach for some reason.
Also
>MPAT
You mean the crappy version of HESH?
>>543491
Well shit you beat me to it.
>>543493
>French, Russian and Israeli tanks always had HE shells in their smoothbore.
Which is why I found it stupid why everyone praises the Mememetall when it is undeserving of said praise. Also in regards to the French gun I must confess I know little about it, all I've heard it's supposedly decent when it works.
>In the day of the CAD it's piss easy to make work any type of warheads to either type of guns.
Easy but not expensive which upsets (((R&D)))
>>543494
I swear the 105mm was the last properly thought out Tank gun.
It could fire; APDS, APFSDS, HEAT, HESH, HE, Canister, Fletchette, WP, ATGM's, frankly there was no excuse to upgrade to 120mm's and not retain this wide selection of ammunition types.
ef233f No.543499
>>543497
>Abrams
>Heavy
Lightest tank in the world if you take out the crew.
067a40 No.543502
>>543499
Little known fact that Burgers have to weigh down the Abrams with bricks to stop it floating away when the crew disembarks.
a0be99 No.543509
>>543499
The polish has you beat :^)
I think light tanks like these may become more common in the future.
ef233f No.543510
>>543509
Where does the horse go?
067a40 No.543513
>>543509
>CV90 in drag
Of course the Swed would post a trap.
6d2e59 No.543528
067a40 No.543539
>>543528
>Greek likes a crossdressing shota
Of course.
d20d10 No.543541
>>543155
You're a big jew.
>>543323
Is that a rhetorical question? At least we're still better than the EU
d79be2 No.543543
26bea3 No.543546
>>543163
>megacities will be unassailiable
>cities rely on external water supply
>cities rely on external food supply
>cities usually rely on external electrical/heating supply
>cities are breeding grounds for disease
>cities are essentially giant death traps
Introduce smallpox or some easily spread respiratory disease like MERS and the city will capitulate in a few weeks.
067a40 No.543549
>>543541
By 2050 everyone in Africa will have moved to EU so we will be free to retake Rhodesia.
bfb20c No.543586
>>543323
attack helicopters were "a thing" in the narrow amount of time when MANPADs and light SAMs didn't exist. and even then they were food for autocannon AAA. Gulf War showed how bad attack helicopters are against an army. effectively an unarmored TD that floats, goes fast, and dies to everything.
b99ff2 No.543592
>>543497
How in the living fuck do you upgrade tank guns and narrow the amount of shells it could fire?
c85d57 No.543600
>>543546
This.
I'd assume any societal collapse to pan out like the Roman empire. We form self sufficient (mostly) small villages and the city pop either leaves, dies, or becomes the golden horde.
>>543485
The bomber will (mostly always) get through.
>Irrelevant when you cant mass produce the F-35.
Does anyone have info on roads in post soviet states? I hear they design them so that US Abrams can't cross or are forced to cross singularly? In china the bridge would just collapse cause it wouldn't fit Chinese tanks either LOL
bfb20c No.543601
>>543499
>next generation MBT will have a handicap ramp for scooters
i suppose we could adopt our greatest ally's tank to fit that
089286 No.543780
>>543600
>US Abrams can't cross
M1a2 can't cross pretty much anywhere in Europe.
Even modern EU roads code are only built with for vehicles of 60t (metric) max (M1a2 is 65t) which is the reason why all modern EU tanks ae under 60t (Chally 2, Leclercs, Ariete, Leo2 before A6,.soviet tanks).
Russia is a swamp 6 month per year so they need their vehicles to be even lighter.
>>543586
Note that they're still a thing but the concept of the "gunship" is that you can send a big pack of helicopters to hunt down a big pack of vehicles and have seem "seek and destroy" said vehicles, fairly unhindered.
Which clearly isn't the right way to go about it.
Now there are two type of tactics for attack helicopters to keep relevance: the Russian way and the French way.
The Russian way is to have helicopters assault wings which is the combination of the "airmobile infantry" (on Mi-8 and Mi-24 acting as a APC and IFVs) the "gunships wing" (Mi-28 acting as tank destroyers) and add a SEAD and an AA layer (KA-52 + various dedicated EW Mi-8s).
Obviously that's the one that take the more dedication since you're essentially making an independent army arm with it's own dedicated platforms, trainings, equipments and tactics.
The french way is to consider attack helicopters as a rare raiding unit, performing hits and runs and sneak attacks on targets already properly located, typically by a dedicated helicopter scout.
Now given the size and the need for assault units the US army has they should have gone the Russian way (and totally planned to hence the Comanche program, which would have had the role of SEAD/scout the Ka-52 and Ka-50 fill, etc…) but they never did and only did half-measures (same with airborne assault really) which is leading to them going the french way, largely due to their failure at actually managing their army properly. Because had the gunships in 2003 been supported by ground infantry capable of seeing/neutralizing/guiding strikes on AAA batteries and by dedicated EW Comanches flying higher looking for targets (but immune to missiles due to their EW suite and stealthy build) they would have wiped out the Iraqis.
6d2e59 No.543781
ab8a59 No.543789
The future of war is already upon us. It looks like pic related.
In terms of actual boots-on-the-ground war, I think we're gonna see a rise in the use of special forces and robotics. We're in an age where a handful of well-trained soldiers with a task to harm infrastructure can do far more damage to a country than thousands or even millions of boots on the ground.
3634c4 No.543822
>>542825
>drones
>drones
>over 9000 drones everywhere
>vehicles that are used in combat roles must have APS
>everyone either hides underground or operates under very tight AA umbrella
>everyone else dies to drones
>reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee is 21st century combat anthem
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlO2gcs1YvM
3634c4 No.543824
>>543163
>Basically, the weapons future of warfare will be displaced civilians and the fight will be against humanity's emotions of empathy and sympathy.
Doesn't work if you are fighting against muslims. They will just slit your civilian throats under everyone applause's in UN.
2d5198 No.543852
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>542825
There's going to be lots of drones.
You're going to have a growth in both conventional and asymmetric warfare because of the collapse of US influence or the economic collapse of states by (((heavy withdrawls))).
Tanks are still going to be useful outside of cities or under a bubble of infantry, artillery and active defense support.
Artillery is still going to be used en masse, you can't get rid of the most effective means of direct support
Fighters won't all be replaced by drones, since they end up making decisions in patterns that can be figured out by poking them.
Bombers won't be replaced either, they'd just be augmented.
Infantry will go down in numbers, but then boom when technology gets cheaper.
These things won't be used to replace humans, but augment them.
>>543822
I don't think they'd make it autonomous to the point that it picks its own targets, there's going to be a man at the end making the last decision (the last words the guy said).
You can use swarms of them to check rooms of city buildings, make openings, and communicate which ones are destroyed, destroy materiel (not personnel) etc.
You can also destroy them with microwave guns.
Besides, if you think flying drones are the ones you have to be afraid of, I was thinking the uses of other types in warfare for a while.
Here's an example of only one.
>Snake like drone
>looks like a high tension wire
>used for reconnaissance mainly but filled with about half a pound of water-gel
>can hide in gutters, storm drains, light poles, trees, out windows, etc. or under the sand or mud, or around plants or in the branches of trees
>if there's a way that a platoon is being overrun and they've got access to these they can be used as mines
>underground? they wrap around the enemy's leg and "pop"
>in an elevated position? they fall on one guy's soldier and "pop"
Their main role is again reconnaissance, but they can be used as mines to disrupt the enemy.
They're cheap, might be affected by high energy microwaves, but you have systems above the cheap ones to do other things or do more complex tasks.
067a40 No.543854
>>543822
>China is able to field over 30,000 drones in the air at once by sinking it's budget to it's chairforce into drone tech
>Unable to deal with the mass of combat UAV's of China outnumbering their chairforce the USAF gets desperate and decides to ask /k/ommandos for a solution to even the odds
>Immediately /k/ommandos cancel the still undelivered F-35 program and use the funding to purchase and refurbish old MiG 21's.
>China's 30,000 drone force is greeted by a wave of 300,000 MiG 21's
>The sheer mass of so many craft close together manage to block the signals to the Chinese drone fleet which proceeds to begin crashing
>The drones that survived are greeted by a Great Wall of Alamo missiles and are promptly destroyed
>Chinks surrender as they are unable to take on such a force as each time they think about sending anything into the air all they remember is the Alamo.
0960cd No.543914
>>543780
>Russia is a swamp 6 month per year so they need their vehicles to be even lighter.
>The Russian way is to have helicopters assault wings which is the combination of the "airmobile infantry" (on Mi-8 and Mi-24 acting as a APC and IFVs) the "gunships wing" (Mi-28 acting as tank destroyers) and add a SEAD and an AA layer (KA-52 + various dedicated EW Mi-8s).
Out of interest are the two linked? If you've got a massive nation with poor infrastructure to deal with I could see helicopters being an attractive thing to invest in.
1c95b4 No.543916
The more we advance the more lame wars become.
We started out with thousands of well-trained literal superhumans fighting with spears and swords in massive formations. We later got rid of their shields and put them in full body armor and armed them with heavier weaponry.
Then we got rid of their armor and gave them rifles. Less men, smaller-scale battles. Longer-range engagements.
Then we got planes, tanks, artillery and machineguns. Even less men, even smaller battles, even longer-range engagements.
Then we got to the point where most of the killing is done with machines and computers. Infantry is becoming more and more irrelevant. Artillery and air strikes do like 80% of the killing.
This is fucking lame tbh.
3a122e No.543923
>>543852
The problem with energy weapons is that they can't see over the horizon so their range is limited. You can increase the range by placing them inside aircraft, but you'll need something fairly large to have a useful weapon. Think something like a Boeing 737 hollowed out and filled with lasers and capacitors, all feeding a beam into a single turret on the nose. That airborne system will never have the power of a ground-based system because it needs to be light enough to lift off.
Limited range due to air scattering the beam and the need for a laser system to expose itself to enemy fire before engaging any target will limit their application in terrestrial warfare.
089286 No.543926
>>543449
I've tracked down some pics of a 57mm grenade launcher.
089286 No.543928
>>543926
(it's called "ags-57" in russian sauce but it doesn't really have a name, it's just a test gun they made to test the new 57mm rounds really).
70762b No.543952
>>543852
>I don't think they'd make it autonomous to the point that it picks its own targets
They already did.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCNo1DTjukE
Even more funny such killer drones were advocated as civilized replacement to evil cluster munitions and this ended in the international law (Convention on Cluster Munitions specifically exempts autonomous killer drones from it).
>You can also destroy them with microwave guns.
Works both ways.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lh1rgy25XhU
2d5198 No.543977
>>543952
>They already did.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCNo1DTjukE
That's a guided weapon's system, not a drone flying over miles trying to designate targets.
You input the enemy signature to be destroyed into it, it doesn't discern from "vague descriptions".
>Works both ways.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lh1rgy25XhU
Drones won't be able to get within range of a system to shut it down and still remain cheap and numerous. This is why I have the statement and I quote;
>but you have systems above the cheap ones to do other things or do more complex tasks.
>>543923
>The problem with energy weapons is that they can't see over the horizon so their range is limited.
This is decent enough to work against cheap drone swarms.
Again, this has nothing to do with more expensive drones, but against the cheap drone swarms that don't have payloads over 100 pounds.
b94caa No.544050
>>543977
>That's a guided weapon's system, not a drone flying over miles trying to designate targets.
You talk like a lawyer. Let call drones "a guided weapon's system" then so you can't have this lawmen twisted talk argument anymore.
>You input the enemy signature to be destroyed into it, it doesn't discern from "vague descriptions".
Your point is?
>Drones won't be able to get within range of a system to shut it down and still remain cheap and numerous.
>*citation needed*
>>543977
>You input the enemy signature to be destroyed into it, it doesn't discern from "vague descriptions".
2d5198 No.544061
>>544050
It doesn't "chose" targets, it attacks what is given to them.
Having it pick targets will cause alot of problems that you don't want to get into, especially since the Chinese are going to be the ones to do this type of shit.
>citation needed
Radiation Hardening costs three things, Weight, Money and Volume.
Being small and numerous and cheap, you wouldn't "need" it if you're finding a target (if it goes down that's where you send the larger drone more powerful drone).
Focused microwaves ain't no joke, it might just feel like a burning sensation on our skin, but it kills electronics quite easily.
It's such a concern that the USAF built this monstrosity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATLAS-I
Also, you end up with an issue, non-nuclear EMPs and Microwaves are cheaper than cheap drones already (since they're way less materials and parts from the start) giving the enemy that type of financial win to produce more disruptive hardware, than taking advantage of a swarm (numbers) will cost you during a fight.
Also, did you have a stroke?
1799d2 No.544085
>>543916
Remember when Hawaii had that "false alarm" 5-6 days ago? Even the military base was on alert, since the system is automated it basically happened and not a peep about it is publicly released.
926d39 No.544087
what future? if everything goes right we will all die an deaths in a nuclear holocaust
5cedba No.544107
>>544061
>It doesn't "chose" targets, it attacks what is given to them.
Sensor fused weapons do. They scan area if there is something meeting target criteria SFW attacks it. If there is not SFW doesn't attack. No man in the loop, fully automated process of detecting target in the giving area. "a guided weapon's system" aka killer drones (trigger warning words) have no difference. Define area, define target criterias, weapon automatically executes seek and destroy process over that area. Progress denying liberals BTFO (they voted for this in the Convention on Cluster Munitions ahahaha)
>will cause alot of problems that you don't want to get into, especially since the Chinese are going to be the ones to do this type of shit.
Problems would for those who was caught in the killer box not for weapon users.
BASED:
https://www.hooktube.com/watch?v=wnd3IYH7x1o
c4bf87 No.544109
>>542825
>Less/no more conventional wars
It'll be weird too talk online with someone your nation is currently at war with.
2d5198 No.544126
>>544107
You still really think that GIGO is AI then there is really no hope for you.
This is the big difference between "CHOICE" and "Designation".
5cedba No.544150
>>544126
>You still really think that GIGO is AI
Nobody really cares about "muh real AI" (except some Musk spergs). SFW are not "real AI" they will still kill your ass inside Abrams tank. Without man in the loop designating them targets.
f43df6 No.544156
Would something like a quad-launcher firing 40mm thermobaric missiles work against smaller drones that are protected against microwaves? The idea is to pair it up with some advanced targeting computer and fire relatively inexpensive missiles, something like Raytheon's Pike. It might be pricey, but still cheaper than a MANPAD that is designed to down helicopters. It would be thermobaric so that you can still use it to take down an UAV on the other end of a street without endangering your own men.
>>543926
>>543928
Interesting, that round somehow reminds me both a shotgun shell and these half-polymer cases, yet I doubt it has anything common with those two. Honestly, my best idea looking at that shape is a "semi-volcanic" round, where some of the propellant is inside the body of the round itself, but that short case is also stuffed with powder. Maybe they are using something more energetic, and so it needs less powder for the same or better effect?
That weapon is also interesting, If they wanted an externally powered weapon, then a single shot weapon would have been enough. I guess they want to keep the weapon gas powered and clip fed. Which is strange in my opinion, because if you need an already complicated autoloader for your gun, then making it a chain gun wouldn't add too much complexity.
>>543923
>That airborne system will never have the power of a ground-based system because it needs to be light enough to lift off.
Oh, you man of little faith. Just slap wings, jets and lasers on a nuclear reactor and you are ready to go. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_aircraft
>Limited range due to air scattering the beam and the need for a laser system to expose itself to enemy fire before engaging any target will limit their application in terrestrial warfare.
I go on a tangent here, but I think this is a "realistic" explanation for the existence of titans in warhammer 40k. Think of them as mobile towers with rather serious passive and active defence systems that are vantage points for direct fire energy weapons. They just happen to have legs instead of threads because the designers were most likely a bunch of scared and insane religious fanatics whose ancestors never seen a manned vehicle of war in many millennia.
886b32 No.544182
The future of warfare will be like the current world war.
Fertility rates, economy and propaganda.
54c6ff No.544634
Do modern armies still have the knowledge to operate without radios? I mean on every level, from the members of a fireteam using hand signals to planning massive artillery strikes before an assault. And then I try to imagine how would a platoon of MBTs or IFVs fare if they had no comms. I do know that long range radios weren't reliable during ww2 and they used runners for everything, but could modern armies even coordinate only with runners?
c85d57 No.544642
>>544634
Uhh flag signals? I dont even know if we have flags for those still.
000000 No.544643
>>543914
I'd be very surprised if they weren't linked. Nobody would have a better idea of how shitty Russia's roads are than the Russians, and having a large number of heavy air assault units that can carry their own fire support and EW with them would make sense.
d79be2 No.544645
>>544642
you can do them with your hands alone, flags are just for better visibility
c85d57 No.544647
>>544645
Yeah. I'm not sure if the US army/airforce knows it. My friend at USNA says its a very short course (1 week) with no real tests after. So probably everyone forget these now.
0960cd No.544650
>>544634
Probably depends on the army.
>>544643
Yeh that's what I was thinking. Does China have a similar line of thought?
2d5198 No.544653
>>544634
They probably have contingency plans for sounds of fire and smoke signals for movement.
This is why you do battle drills, you don't have to communicate for alot of it
c85d57 No.544688
>>544650
depends. City roads are somtimes better than US level but deliberately kept narrow.
In Tibet/Xinjiang/Yunnan or mountains areas the roads arent usually maintained Or they keep failing due to frequent landslides/earthquakes. It's not unnormal to hear about a <6.0 Earthquake in Tibet.
Also, the tibet route is perilous enough it's said that your better off living as a murder because you know WHEN your gonna die.
0960cd No.544831
>>544688
>depends. City roads are somtimes better than US level but deliberately kept narrow.
Why the narrowness? I assume some sort of effort to control unrest but how specifically.
d79be2 No.544833
>>544831
chinks are smoll so they have small roads
its only logical
c85d57 No.544869
>>544831
>>544833
Muh mountain roads and one lane fits all meme. Cause the trucks in China are smaller than US ones due to mountains so lanes are not as wide else ware. Ever see a jap/chink tractor? that's the same reason they ain't fixin to get the large ones like we've got in the state.
>also just lack of planning
0960cd No.544892
>>544869
You'd think the one thing the PRC could do was plan.
9fdf65 No.544910
>>543914
Off course there are. Same as with why a VDV brigade is a full fledged combined unit, mass airdrops are meant primarily as a defensive measure over Russia territory, with a VDV formation (brigade/division/army) stalling the enemy (brigade/division/army) while the airspace is still contested/under Russia control while the proper ground troops can get there.
It's not bad roads is just that most of Russia is empty space barely anyone living in it. You have big urban islands with their archipelagos of small towns/villages close to it in an ocean of farm/forest/empty lands. You can drive for 100km without seeing any sign of human life.
And that's western Russia, just open Google maps and look at the area from Latvia's border to St. Petersburg.
Eastern Russia you have 'cities (with hundreds of thousands of inhabitants) that have no road or track connection to the rest of the country, let alone towns and villages…
c85d57 No.544920
>>544892
They can. They just don't execute well. :)
d368c8 No.545055
>>542923
Why not combine rubber and ERA?
0960cd No.545075
>>544910
Makes sense then, sort of like how African nations invest in paratroopers for similar reasons but with lower maintenance.
bf28a2 No.545079
>>544892
Ah, but remember, complaining about … anything at all is a sign of political unreliability. I hope you weren't planning on filing any government paperwork, getting a job, or receiving healthcare citizen, those are for the good people who truly believe in the party and republic (and can pay the appropriate bribes).