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

The impact of the ‘long peace’ on modern military capabilities

acoup.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 339 posts

Re: The impact of the ‘long peace’ on modern military capabilities

#281

Post by jack_h »

edrxty wrote: post #272
andrewflnr wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sort of a nitpick, but really not: length has nothing to do with whether a rifle is a "battle rifle". The difference between a battle rifle and assault rifle is all about the cartridge, not length of the barrel.

I think that's probably arguable. Most of these kinds of definitions are much more length focused and the length does most of the same things as having a larger cartridge.

Battle rifle implies a full powered cartridge such as 7.62 NATO. Assault rifle implies an intermediate cartridge such as 5.56 NATO. Intermediate cartridges have lower energy than full powered cartridges.

Barrel length is important to velocity up to a point, but you can also tune other parts of the system to increase velocity out of shorter barrels (M855A1). However, that is far from the only consideration when discussing the ballistics of a cartridge. Projectile mass determines how stable the projectile is. The 5.56 projectile tumbles and cavitates when hitting soft tissue due to its low mass. However, that also means obstructions like foliage can cause it to destabilize in-flight and it is less effective at barrier penetration.

Re: The impact of the ‘long peace’ on modern military capabilities

#282

Post by Nasrudith »

kajumix wrote: post #94

"Prior to the long peace, there’s little question what happens to a country like Venezuela, which is essentially a giant pile of barely guarded wealth: one – or several – of its neighbors would move in, oust the government and seize the territory and its valuable resources (oil, in this case)." While I don't advocate war and violence, I can't help think that such a hostile takeover of a poorly run country by another…

The war has long been internalized in "Banana Republic" or "Resource Cursed" situations with coups. It has the same element of fear of being killed. Of course that also has different definitions of "poorly run" and "strong". "Not funneling enough oil money into the military's pockets." could count as "poorly run" and "military well under control" as "strong".

Dictators tend to have shitty armies because they depend upon buying loyalty and/or setting up self-sabotaging hierarchies beneath them to stay on top. They are good enough to oppress their own populace just fine but tend to get their asses handed to them when they ill-advisedly attempt external use.

Re: The impact of the ‘long peace’ on modern military capabilities

#283

Post by [deleted] »

jonstewart wrote: post #276
hunter-gatherer wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The US and the HMMWV did great at the combat part of Iraq and Afghanistan. The real switch was from conventional military operations to the long peace The combat part was ok I guess, but what OP is pointing out was what we went to conflict with. Lots of money was spent upgrading Humvees with armor and turret mounts that didn't exist. The equipment fielded by US troops actually looked very different from a compariso…

I think the hypothetical you posit is wrong, as US doctrine places primacy on air power. In Iraq, I & II, air strikes at the outset destroyed much of the Iraqi armor and spurred a lot of desertion. I’m not a military and/or Iraq war expert so I don’t want to argue definitively, but I don’t think you can say US losses would have been significantly higher had the Iraqi army had heavier weapons and fighting skills — the…

[deleted]

Re: The impact of the ‘long peace’ on modern military capabilities

#284

Post by asdff »

ajross wrote: post #254
barbariangrunge wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The peace is due to nuclear weapons and the threat of global extinction. When that isn’t a factor, we still see lots of wars. Period. Because the next major war between nuclear equipped powers might be the worlds last

> The peace is due to nuclear weapons and the threat of global extinction. When that isn’t a factor, we still see lots of wars. Period. We don't, though. The article treats with this. In fact per capita deaths to state violence are down remarkably over the last century, all over the world. The perception , due to the reach of modern media, is that war is everywhere. But the truth on the ground is very different. Two…

The nuclear powers attempt to enforce a hegemony. For instance, the US has military bases in nations around the world. This tends to ensure nations like Japan or the Philippines aren't invaded anytime soon.

On the other hand, there are countries that aren't necessarily within this hegemony, and anything from warlordism to outright nation state warfare is liable to be taking place.

Re: The impact of the ‘long peace’ on modern military capabilities

#285

Post by photochemsyn »

michaelt wrote: post #64

> What is – quietly, because they haven’t tried to launch a major invasion recently – most militaries are probably similarly incapable of the basic tasks of industrial warfare? I once read an article that argued in the absence of war, it's impossible to tell if a doctrine or commander is good or not . Maybe you've got five officers up for promotion. One officer wants to give soldiers high-tech equipment, a heads-up d…

Well, in the next war the first casualties will most likey be Moscow and Washington, probably at least a 20-mile radius from initial ground zero, so there'll be plenty of room for promotion.

After that, it'll be back to leading charges of soldiers equipped with sticks and stones. I imagine any idiot will be able to figure that out.

Re: The impact of the ‘long peace’ on modern military capabilities

#286

Post by ChoHag »

ponector wrote: post #236
ajuc wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just before WW2 the Haber Bosch process for fixing atmospheric nitrogen into fertilizers/explosives (same thing basically) was invented. Shortly after the war it was widespread, and since then there was no starvation in any developed or even semi-developed country. Hitler started WW2 to annex Ukraine because of its fertile soil. Basically he wanted colonies without the inconvenience of dealing with the sea. Like sovi…

What? Hitler started a war with UK, France and other countries to annex Ukraine a few years later?

[dead]

Re: The impact of the ‘long peace’ on modern military capabilities

#287

Post by [deleted] »

jonstewart wrote: post #276
hunter-gatherer wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The US and the HMMWV did great at the combat part of Iraq and Afghanistan. The real switch was from conventional military operations to the long peace The combat part was ok I guess, but what OP is pointing out was what we went to conflict with. Lots of money was spent upgrading Humvees with armor and turret mounts that didn't exist. The equipment fielded by US troops actually looked very different from a compariso…

I think the hypothetical you posit is wrong, as US doctrine places primacy on air power. In Iraq, I & II, air strikes at the outset destroyed much of the Iraqi armor and spurred a lot of desertion. I’m not a military and/or Iraq war expert so I don’t want to argue definitively, but I don’t think you can say US losses would have been significantly higher had the Iraqi army had heavier weapons and fighting skills — the…

[deleted]

Re: The impact of the ‘long peace’ on modern military capabilities

#288

Post by rascul »

jonstewart wrote: post #276
hunter-gatherer wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The US and the HMMWV did great at the combat part of Iraq and Afghanistan. The real switch was from conventional military operations to the long peace The combat part was ok I guess, but what OP is pointing out was what we went to conflict with. Lots of money was spent upgrading Humvees with armor and turret mounts that didn't exist. The equipment fielded by US troops actually looked very different from a compariso…

I think the hypothetical you posit is wrong, as US doctrine places primacy on air power. In Iraq, I & II, air strikes at the outset destroyed much of the Iraqi armor and spurred a lot of desertion. I’m not a military and/or Iraq war expert so I don’t want to argue definitively, but I don’t think you can say US losses would have been significantly higher had the Iraqi army had heavier weapons and fighting skills — the…

> But the US M777 towed howitzer costs ~$3.7M (titanium) while the French Caesar costs $5-6M and can outrange the M777 in addition to driving away immediately after firing.

The US has the M109 which can serve in some of the same roles the Caesar can.

Also, does France have much rocket artillery? That might play a factor in the requirements for other artillery systems.

Re: The impact of the ‘long peace’ on modern military capabilities

#289

Post by zmgsabst »

credit_guy wrote: post #268
michaelt wrote: post #64

> What is – quietly, because they haven’t tried to launch a major invasion recently – most militaries are probably similarly incapable of the basic tasks of industrial warfare? I once read an article that argued in the absence of war, it's impossible to tell if a doctrine or commander is good or not . Maybe you've got five officers up for promotion. One officer wants to give soldiers high-tech equipment, a heads-up d…

> I once read an article that argued in the absence of war, it's impossible to tell if a doctrine or commander is good or not. I think that's correct. And I have 2 examples, one that proves it, and one that disproves it. The first example is the Royal Navy in the 19th and early 20th century. The master of the seas. In the absence of any real competitor, how was it supposed to stay in shape? Well, it was hard, it was…

I think it largely comes down to staff quality:

- US flew quite a number of sorties that weren’t directly effective, at high casualties, to delay and “stuff up” the Japanese fleet

- US use of kamikaze attack rattled the Japanese command

- Miles Browning wrote a paper about exactly the tactic used at Midway against the Japanese [1]

You can (and the US did) shuffle commanders as needed — but you can’t suddenly create enlisted to do the dirty work or experts with the right ideas. Those require existing culture. Similarly, with a robust industrial base, you can pivot your manufacturing efforts (eg, battleships to carriers) — but you can’t build entirely new factories of skilled workers very quickly (eg, US struggles to build shells for Ukraine).

Perhaps this is a simplistic view, but I don’t think you can have the right military at the start of a conflict; you can only develop a robust, rapidly adaptable military base. That is, you can only make the military anti-fragile.

My advice would be to ignore the admirals (since you can always get new ones), and instead focus on quality NCOs, junior officers, and economics: they’re the backbone/framework of any future victory.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_Browning

Re: The impact of the ‘long peace’ on modern military capabilities

#290

Post by ocbyc »

gonzo41 wrote: post #257
13of40 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember how the US went into Afghanistan with HMMWVs (aluminum bodied cars with canvas doors) and M16a2s (full length battle rifles with iron sights) and left with MRAPs and A4s. You learn stuff when you switch from training to combat.

They picked up the M4s in Iraq. Those full length M16a2s go HAM for the engagement distances in Afghanistan. And don't worry, the army is already circling back towards light skinned vehicles.

Well we left a bunch of the mraps behind. So I guess they gotta start over.
Post reply on HN