201–210 of 490 posts
Yes it does. See "The Chieftain: No, The Tank Is Not Dead" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI7T650RTT8 TLDW: Tank has a task on a battlefield and fact that you can easily kill it won't take that task away. Same goes for infantry and they are not going away either. On the other hand we don't see battleships anymore, because big guns were replaced by precise missiles with much more range.
Yes it does. See "The Chieftain: No, The Tank Is Not Dead" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI7T650RTT8 TLDW: Tank has a task on a battlefield and fact that you can easily kill it won't take that task away. Same goes for infantry and they are not going away either. On the other hand we don't see battleships anymore, because big guns were replaced by precise missiles with much more range.
Is there a good rundown of every piece of weaponry and its corresponding utility and strategy somewhere? I'd love to update or correct my understanding of tanks, artillery, HIMARS, aircraft carriers, cruisers, littoral combat, submarine classes, F-22, F-35, AWACS, etc.
https://acoup.blog/2022/05/06/collections-when-is-a-tank-not...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Never say never, but you really don't want that to happen.
I didn't say anything about wanting it to happen. But if it happens, does anyone seriously believe that US could avoid re-instituting the draft?
The US no longer has a draft law because the US determined that the draft was bad both from a military manpower perspective and from a domestic politics perspective as to maintaining national will to continue a conflict.
The US will not reauthorize a draft for an overseas war while the US remains a major power. If the US collapses from major power status and the entire political and military calculus is scrambled, it might.
Yes it does. See "The Chieftain: No, The Tank Is Not Dead" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI7T650RTT8 TLDW: Tank has a task on a battlefield and fact that you can easily kill it won't take that task away. Same goes for infantry and they are not going away either. On the other hand we don't see battleships anymore, because big guns were replaced by precise missiles with much more range.
Your comment is extremely misleading. Modern militaries are rapidly transforming into what was science fiction, say, 50 years ago: almost exclusively remote-controlled robots and primarily (or even exclusively) autonomous robots. If you call small, unmanned, armored vehicles "tanks" you are misleading people. In modern militaries, whether it be surface ships, submarines, airplanes, tanks, etc.... within another few d…
They are absolutely not disposing of obsolete weapons -- and the West has no desire to "carve up Ukraine". How did Washington antagonize Moscow? NATO is a voluntary defensive pact. The Eastern European countries, who all have a long history of being oppressed and occupied by Russian (and Soviet) governments, asked to join NATO. What good would it do for the West to start a war? What is there to gain from brinksmanship when the stakes are a strategic nuclear exchange?
The idea that this war is at all something provoked by the West, or in any way defensive on Russia's part, is pure Russian propaganda. The Putin regime fears the democratization of its neighbors resulting in its own people losing confidence in its ability to lead the country. This phase of the war is merely an extension of Russia's desire to quash any semblance of Ukrainian agency -- this war started in 2014, after the last vestige of Russia's control over Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovich, fled the country.
Finally, your view actively denies the Ukrainian people their agency. If they did not find this war worthwhile, if they did not think Ukraine as an idea was worth defending, why are they dying in their tens of thousands to defend it?
The USMC got rid of their tanks. The closest thing to a tank they still have is a Light Armored Vehicle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Clausewitz is to be believed, killing the enemy army is priority 1, and territory only matters in pursuit of that goal. Makes sense - if all combatants in the Russian army are dead, there’s no further need to defend territory for Ukraine. A boom with a border guard stamping passports would suffice.
Right, but what if you want to chase the Russians out of Ukraine without killing the Russian army to the last man?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do portable drones not offer the instant firepower?
Because when a tank fires its APFSDS gun, the muzzle velocity is 1500 meters-per-second. In contrast, a drone flies at 25 to 50 meters-per-second. ------ To put it in concrete terms, a tank 3000 meters away will hit its target in 2 seconds. A drone 3000 meters away will take 1.5 minutes. In contrast, the Javelin you launch will take 12 seconds before it hits the tank at that range. That's more than enough time for th…
> In contrast, the Javelin you launch will take 12 seconds before it hits the tank at that range.
What's the latency for the turret to pivot to the target angle? I suppose it's pretty fast but let's say in worst case 180deg? How long does that take? 1s? 10s?
Yes it does. See "The Chieftain: No, The Tank Is Not Dead" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI7T650RTT8 TLDW: Tank has a task on a battlefield and fact that you can easily kill it won't take that task away. Same goes for infantry and they are not going away either. On the other hand we don't see battleships anymore, because big guns were replaced by precise missiles with much more range.
I always thought that battleships were ursurped by carriers. Aircraft killed the battleships.
You know how everything in our lives is slowly becoming smart? This goes for all the weapons too.