Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lasers or Longbows? A Paradox of Military Technology (2010)

search.informit.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 72 posts

Re: Lasers or Longbows? A Paradox of Military Technology (2010)

#21

Post by ovi256 »

thriftwy wrote: post #9
MichaMeier wrote: post #2

Modern military technology seems to become too costly. Recent conflicts in the middle east seem to indicate that low-cost approaches can have some terribly effective successes against much more sophisticated militaries.

Modern consumer drones are of great use now - these do not cost that much but are basically only produced in China. FPV drones can almost be crafted locally, though, using off the shelf components.

> FPV drones can almost be crafted locally, though, using off the shelf components.

The COTS components are all made in China. That's why no Western military is planning to use them in wartime - that supply chain is depending on the good will of an adversary.

Re: Lasers or Longbows? A Paradox of Military Technology (2010)

#22

Post by genman »

dgan wrote: post #10
MichaMeier wrote: post #2

Modern military technology seems to become too costly. Recent conflicts in the middle east seem to indicate that low-cost approaches can have some terribly effective successes against much more sophisticated militaries.

While Ukrainian conflict shows the opposite?

Russian genocidal war against Ukraine is not yet settled and the weapons used there are in constant evolution. If anything it is the response of Israel to the 7th October genocide that shows that expensive weapon systems in the hands of competent military still triumph any low cost approaches.

Re: Lasers or Longbows? A Paradox of Military Technology (2010)

#24

Post by thriftwy »

ovi256 wrote: post #21
thriftwy wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Modern consumer drones are of great use now - these do not cost that much but are basically only produced in China. FPV drones can almost be crafted locally, though, using off the shelf components.

> FPV drones can almost be crafted locally, though, using off the shelf components. The COTS components are all made in China. That's why no Western military is planning to use them in wartime - that supply chain is depending on the good will of an adversary.

They're going to have a very hard time then. Your military has a small number of larger and way more expensive drones which require specialized training. Your adversary also has a large number of cheap Chinese drones and the expertise to use them is widespread. Guess who gets a grenade in their tank hatch and who gets their mortar fire corrected. They will be sitting ducks to FPV unless they have enough electronic warfare to reliably close the entirety of 200 km front.

On Ukrainian front both sides go as far as to install CCTV to watch their adversaries' movement while in their improvised bunker. These are also civilian systems which get delivered to the front by volunteers. Ukrainian war is notably BYOD. It helps that both sides figured out to pay good money to soldiers on the ground.

Re: Lasers or Longbows? A Paradox of Military Technology (2010)

#25

Post by suoduandao3 »

genman wrote: post #19
hef19898 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Asymetric warfare is very different from the near-peer conventional warfare we see in Ukraine. One cannot occupy a region milotarily if a large enough portion of the local population is hell bent to oppose that accupation. That's what happened in Vietnam and Afghanistan. Ukraine is what happens ofnthe imvasion force is met by defenders capable of stopping the invasion. And the war in Ukraine cannot be fought with low…

Actually no, it is not what happened in Vietnam and Afghanistan. In Vietnam there was constant foreign infiltration by the enemy and they used quite nasty "tactics" to gain local influence. Afghanistan is not much different. In principle the side that was more willing to instill more terror into local populace won. The same problems of logistics also do apply to the local opposition. If you run out of weapons or ammu…

The best rebuttal I've heard to this line of thinking is: "Some say we lost Afghanistan because we weren't willing to be brutal enough. Well, the Russians were willing to be brutal enough, yet they also lost Afghanistan."

Re: Lasers or Longbows? A Paradox of Military Technology (2010)

#26

Post by michaelt »

genman wrote: post #19
hef19898 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Asymetric warfare is very different from the near-peer conventional warfare we see in Ukraine. One cannot occupy a region milotarily if a large enough portion of the local population is hell bent to oppose that accupation. That's what happened in Vietnam and Afghanistan. Ukraine is what happens ofnthe imvasion force is met by defenders capable of stopping the invasion. And the war in Ukraine cannot be fought with low…

Actually no, it is not what happened in Vietnam and Afghanistan. In Vietnam there was constant foreign infiltration by the enemy and they used quite nasty "tactics" to gain local influence. Afghanistan is not much different. In principle the side that was more willing to instill more terror into local populace won. The same problems of logistics also do apply to the local opposition. If you run out of weapons or ammu…

> The same problems of logistics also do apply to the local opposition.

Do they? There's a reason they call it asymmetric warfare.

An occupying army of 200,000 needs 200,000 guns.

An insurgent force that wants to shoot up one bus/shop/school/whatever per day only needs one gun a day.

Re: Lasers or Longbows? A Paradox of Military Technology (2010)

#27

Post by jokoon »

Isn't it easy enough to make ammunition for modern rifles?

I'm not a gunsmith or gun engineer, but it doesn't sound difficult to reuse casings and make ammunition.

Of course, one would still need to make:

* pointy bullets with steel scraps and some cast/mold and some coal-powered oven (you see a lot of youtube guys melting metal with not that much equipment)

* gunpowder and a primer, and might not require a lot of chemistry. Smokeless powder is hard to do, but normal powder should be easy enough.

Even in the end times when there is no oil or industry, it seems that making rifle ammunition is still better, modern rifle are quite accurate and deadly at 100m, maybe even with low quality ammunition, while you need a very skilled archer to hit a target at that distance.

Re: Lasers or Longbows? A Paradox of Military Technology (2010)

#28

Post by [deleted] »

suoduandao3 wrote: post #25
genman wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually no, it is not what happened in Vietnam and Afghanistan. In Vietnam there was constant foreign infiltration by the enemy and they used quite nasty "tactics" to gain local influence. Afghanistan is not much different. In principle the side that was more willing to instill more terror into local populace won. The same problems of logistics also do apply to the local opposition. If you run out of weapons or ammu…

The best rebuttal I've heard to this line of thinking is: "Some say we lost Afghanistan because we weren't willing to be brutal enough. Well, the Russians were willing to be brutal enough, yet they also lost Afghanistan."

[deleted]

Re: Lasers or Longbows? A Paradox of Military Technology (2010)

#29

Post by thriftwy »

jokoon wrote: post #27

Isn't it easy enough to make ammunition for modern rifles? I'm not a gunsmith or gun engineer, but it doesn't sound difficult to reuse casings and make ammunition. Of course, one would still need to make: * pointy bullets with steel scraps and some cast/mold and some coal-powered oven (you see a lot of youtube guys melting metal with not that much equipment) * gunpowder and a primer, and might not require a lot of ch…

"Normal" powder will clog your automatic rifle real fast. No problem if you're doing single shots with it, I guess.

Re: Lasers or Longbows? A Paradox of Military Technology (2010)

#30

Post by thriftwy »

suoduandao3 wrote: post #25
genman wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually no, it is not what happened in Vietnam and Afghanistan. In Vietnam there was constant foreign infiltration by the enemy and they used quite nasty "tactics" to gain local influence. Afghanistan is not much different. In principle the side that was more willing to instill more terror into local populace won. The same problems of logistics also do apply to the local opposition. If you run out of weapons or ammu…

The best rebuttal I've heard to this line of thinking is: "Some say we lost Afghanistan because we weren't willing to be brutal enough. Well, the Russians were willing to be brutal enough, yet they also lost Afghanistan."

I don't think so why there is this underlying assumption that Russians were "brutal", but when USSR took their forces from Afghanistan, they actually left a secular regime there that has survived for a few years and actually significantly outlived the USSR itself.

Maybe it would hang around longer if USSR was intact and assisting.

Post reply on HN