Military talks, 2010 + Options

[Serialkillerwhal...]

Already both sides have enough to nuke the entire planet, making bigger nukes right now is just a waste. Unless we start leaving the planet and becoming an interplanetary species, or missile interdiction technology becomes effective enough to factor into it, making bigger nukes is a complete waste.

If nuclear technology development were a thing, it'd be focused on making stealthier, smaller ICBMs, that are less likely to be damaged in a first strike situation. And if we're dealing with such a situation, literally everyone would see it coming, and the second strike will, almost undoubtedly, be on it's way before the first strike hits. (A few missile-like blips is one thing. The kind of massive first strike that might hope to stop a second strike, is far too big to mistake).

This post has been edited by Serialkillerwhale: 24 Jun 2016, 1:14

[3rdShockArmy]

@Crusher
I mostly agree, but why do you think that Sarmat is only propaganda? The missile has already been tested. Besides, the Satan's life service is close to an end, and heavy (super-heavy in this case) ICBMs are the foundation of nuclear deterrence/MAD doctrine. They simply need to replace those. The same goes for the aging Yank Minuteman (the latest variant is Minuteman III, IIRC), and they are working on a replacement. With the exception of the latest Tridents, Western arsenal lags behind Russia's latest toys. They are working on theirs AFAIK, but I'm yet to find any specific and reliable information about this.
@Whale
Well, that might have been the case during the peak of the Cold War, when both sides had tens of thousands of nuclear weapons. Did you know that they tested more nukes since the 50s, than there is today in the entire arsenal on this planet? As long as those things keep the MAD alive, I'm all pro-nuclear.

This post has been edited by 3rdShockArmy: 24 Jun 2016, 10:35

[__CrUsHeR]

@Crusher
I mostly agree, but why do you think that Sarmat is only propaganda? The missile has already been tested. Besides, the Satan's life service is close to an end, and heavy (super-heavy in this case) ICBMs are the foundation of nuclear deterrence/MAD doctrine. They simply need to replace those. The same goes for the aging Yank Minuteman (the latest variant is Minuteman III, IIRC), and they are working on a replacement. With the exception of the latest Tridents, Western arsenal lags behind Russia's latest toys. They are working on theirs AFAIK, but I'm yet to find any specific and reliable information about this.

Propaganda because the Sarmat is not something really necessary in fact or to change the balance of Russia x NATO situation in nuclear field (although arguably be more modern and efficient than Satam). Anyway is another trump card of Putin and Russia.

I believe that the SLBMs of Russia are the best vectors against NATO; Russian submarines are probably the best in the world (as well as the biggest NATO security threat, and has scared to Scandinavia, UK and the USA).

This post has been edited by __CrUsHeR: 25 Jun 2016, 0:52

[3rdShockArmy]

Propaganda because the Sarmat is not something really necessary in fact or to change the balance of Russia x NATO situation in nuclear field (although arguably be more modern and efficient than Satam). Anyway is another trump card of Putin and Russia.

I believe that the SLBMs of Russia are the best vectors against NATO; Russian submarines are probably the best in the world (as well as the biggest NATO security threat, and has scared to Scandinavia, UK and the USA).

Although I do agree that Sarmat is also a great tool of psychological warfare, I still think that it's more than credible enough deterrent. But yes, you are absolutely right about SLBMs. I presume you're referring to Bulava-armed Borei-class subs. AFAIK, those are the only fifth-generation subs in service, although the Yanks are already working on their own fifth-gen subs.

[__CrUsHeR]

Video of an hour of urban warfare in Brazil (state of Rio de Janeiro), military police (PMRJ) and the Brazilian Army in the war against drug traffickers:

Urban Warfare (Rio de Janeiro Brazil)

- Brazil is the country in the world where the United Nations says more police die per year;
- Brazil is the country in the world where the police more kills;
- The Rio de Janeiro is a hostile area dominated by drug trafficking and militias that established a parallel power that affront the state;
- The arms of traffickers is varied and vast, including grenades, land mines, machine guns and rifles, also have RPGs (although rare);
- The Rio de Janeiro is an Olympic city

[3rdShockArmy]

Damn. Those police officers should be wearing helmets. Here in Serbia, our antiterrorist squads are equipped like wartime soldiers. And those criminals in the favelas aren't any better than terrorists, IMHO. Killing people, trafficking drugs, guns and women. And starting literal mini-wars in the streets of Brazilian cities.

[3rdShockArmy]

I just finished reading a 700-page book (part of a larger encyclopedia) on the advances of military technology from the start of the WWI to the early days of the Cold War (50s/60s). It's a good study. Although I thought that the greatest leap happened during late WWII-early Cold War years, it seems that actually happened during late WWI and the interwar period. While many WWI generals employed long-obsolete tactics, including mass-cavalry charges, which led to hundreds of thousands of needless casualties, towards the end of the war tanks and planes became important, even crucial. However, even that becomes ridiculous when compared to WWII mechanized tactics or use of strong air force as a spearhead of blitzkrieg. Towards the end of the war, there were incredible weapons like smart-bombs, ballistic/cruise/guided missiles, all kinds of revolutionary experimental weapons and last, but certainly not the least, nuclear weapons. Cold War gave us the Space Race, ICBMs, etc. So, what do you think?

This post has been edited by 3rdShockArmy: 8 Aug 2016, 11:37

[Serialkillerwhal...]

Necessity is the Mother of Invention.
Much of the WWII tech actually existed on-paper or were partially extant theories before the war and the immediate need to make something for the war effort.

Plus, they had time to battle-test their ideas and see what worked. And what didn't. Lets take tank designs.

Much of the pre-WWII Tank designs were......well

I'd make a joke about this one but it was too long.

And of course. The grand prize for "What the hell were you thinking" goes to this thing.

I kid you not they actually thought this was a good idea.

This post has been edited by Serialkillerwhale: 11 Aug 2016, 13:37

[3rdShockArmy]

Just had a nice laugh. Thanks for that.
You're right. These things do look idiotic. It's just that most of human progress does. If we think of all the pioneers of human flight or about this example or about medical practice up until relatively recently, we might conclude humans are idiots. But no. It's all about trial and error. If you're not sure, well, just try the damn thing and see what happens. Not all the things, of course.
Back on-topic.
What could be the truth? When did we make this incredible leap? When did we realize the endless potential of technology as a tool of destruction? And from that powerful drive to destroy the "enemy" (other humans) came endless stream of inventions which saved and continue to save millions, even tens or hundreds of millions of people.
My opinion varies on this, but I'm mostly inclined to believe it was a period between the 30s and early 60s which was the greatest leap. Militarily speaking, we are "hostages" of ICBMs for more than half a century now. It doesn't seem that much to many people, but if we think of half a century from late 19th to the end of the first half of the 20th century, than this period might be the most unprecedented period of the advances in military technology in the history (and not just military tech). Late 1800s when compared to the time of the WWII, hell, even WWI to some extent, look light years away. While even in the late 19th century, most of the planet still lived in a semi-medieval world for centuries, just a few decades later, we had things that define our lives to this day, just one human lifetime later. How did we do it?

This post has been edited by 3rdShockArmy: 11 Aug 2016, 20:23

[Jet02]

Speaking of sukhois... is there a way to visually differentiate between a su-27 and su-35?

[3rdShockArmy]

It's not so easy to spot the difference if you're not an aviation fan. If you're referring to the Su 35S, than it shouldn't be so hard, 'cause this one is the latest derivative of the Flanker family, or the last of the Flankers. Aside from the latest camouflage, there are also other differences, like the lack of canards that previous Flanker modernization variants had (most notably the Su 37). Basically, the S variant is an entirely new aircraft in a time-tested airframe, so that's why it's not easy to differentiate them. It's a good and cheap way to have a 5th generation in all but stealth.

[Jet02]

Isn't the newest variant the UB?

But aren't there any differences between the airframes?
(Drooped nose, larger wings, etc.)

This post has been edited by Jet02: 15 Sep 2016, 15:25

[3rdShockArmy]

IIRC, it should be the S, but I could be wrong.
Yes, I think the 35 is a bit larger, and its front is stealthier than the previous variants. And the 3D vectoring of course.

This post has been edited by 3rdShockArmy: 15 Sep 2016, 17:08

[Jet02]

My mistake. The UB is a 2-seat trainer.

The su-35 seems to have a longer nose than the old su-27. I'm not sure, though.

[3rdShockArmy]

www.ausairpower.net/flanker.html

This post has been edited by 3rdShockArmy: 16 Sep 2016, 20:46

[3rdShockArmy]

Try this. I don't know why, but the edit button is removed for me.

[ComradeCrimson]

While not the most efficient design, that tank isn't the worst I've seen. Its still a modestly alright looking early tank. You could be driving this piece of garbage instead:

[Jet02]

When was this design created?

[ComradeCrimson]

When was this design created?

The Bob Semple tank was designed in World War 2 by New Zealand's minister of works at the time, Bob Semple, a civilian; in a desperate hysterical attempt to design a home defense tank that could be produced out of available materials to combat potential Japanese invasion.

It was, even back then, perceived as an utter joke when the result came to fruition, and it was only used in parades, and eventually even then it was retired as it was seen as a disgrace.

Long story short, its the failed attempt of the Kiwi's trying to be relevant in armoured warfare.

[nikitazero678]

Just want to share this quite hilarious (but quite ironic) news: http://www.janes.com/article/63815/indones...-naval-exercise

[Jet02]

What is the difference between an assault rifle and a battle rifle?

[MARS]

First, we have to look at the origin of the term assault rifle. This goes back to WW2, where the Germans developed a series of so-called 'machine carbines' that were distinct in their use of an intermediate calibre round (i.e. larger than a 9mm pistol round but smaller than 7.62mm rifle round), select-fire operation (semi vs full auto) and detachable box magazines (previously a feature of submachine guns). This eventually led to the MP-43 and MP-44 submachine guns, which were partly developed in secret - hence the many name changes - because Hitler had initially rejected the idea. At some point, he did approve though and the new MPs were issued. When he was informed of their performance and saw them demonstrated, he was so impressed that he redesignated the weapon as the Sturmgewehr, German for 'storm/assault rifle'. The name was iconic from a propaganda angle and very descriptive of this new class of select-fire, intermediate calibre, detachable magazine weapon.

The term battle rifle is a post-WW2 term that came from the need to better distinguish literal assault rifles (such as the M16 and AK series) from other automatic rifles that were similar to assault rifles by design, but still used full-sized 7.62mm rifle ammo (such as the West German G3, Belgian FAL and American M14). In short, a battle rifle is a select-fire infantry rifle that uses full-sized ammunition, whereas an assault rifle uses a smaller intermediate-sized ammunition. Note that this distinction is mostly present in the West because 'true' assault rifles and battle rifles existed alongside each other during the Cold War due to NATO countries using a variety of different rifles, whereas Soviet/Russian and Chinese nomenclature doesn't seem to use the term due to an early and largely consistent switch to AK style weapons.

This post has been edited by MARS: 26 Nov 2016, 7:12

[Nemanja]

First, we have to look at the origin of the term assault rifle. This goes back to WW2, where the Germans developed a series of so-called 'machine carbines' that were distinct in their use of an intermediate calibre round (i.e. larger than a 9mm pistol round but smaller than 7.62mm rifle round)

Wasn't like 7.9 rifle round that had widespread use among Germans during WW2 ?
There were no 7.62 rifle rounds during WW2.

[MARS]

Pardon that slight error. German rifle cartridge in both World Wars was 7.92x57mm, also called 8x57.

[Nemanja]

Let me throw in a fun fact here, revolving around 7.9 .

It is still in use here, most of weapons using it are phased out, but M76 dmr still uses that round.