Military talks, 2010 + Options

[Jet02]

What would be the outcome of a real battle between a tank formation and a mobile artillery group? What are the factors that would influence the outcome, and what can the losing side do to turn the tables?

[(USA)Bruce]

What would be the outcome of a real battle between a tank formation and a mobile artillery group? What are the factors that would influence the outcome, and what can the losing side do to turn the tables?

Intel, terrain, what tanks or artillery are we talking about, training/human factor is something that will be mentioned but wont be a caculateable varraible.

So this is a very off question, first of all a force of tanks wont stick to a formation when the foe has artillery on their side, they'd split and try to find their spotters

[Jet02]

Let's just say ...
1.they started off as a formation.
2. Everything is modern(t-14, m1a2sep, etc.)
3. No backup for anyone

Anything else there is to consider?

This post has been edited by Jet02: 2 Feb 2017, 17:45

[MARS]

Flawed experimental premise because armies with modern hardware (such as America and Russia, given the tanks you specified) would always use combined arms where the advancing tanks operate in close coordination with IFVs carrying infantry, helicopters, aircraft, reconnaissance and artillery some tens of kilometres away. A single platoon of tanks derping about in contested territory completely on their own so they can play cat and mouse with a lone battery of self-propelled howitzers with no manoeuvre support whatsoever is something neither side would allow to happen.

[Jet02]

So does mobile artillery stand a chance against tanks? Or do they just get pwned like in most RTSes?

I was trying not to include other assets so this wouldn't become one of those generic "usa vs russia who wins?" threads you find on quora.

This post has been edited by Jet02: 4 Feb 2017, 3:22

[MARS]

Again, it depends on circumstances. If you put the tank platoon and the artillery battery in a few square kilometre bubble, chances are the tanks would eventually find and destroy them easily. Under these artificial circumstances, the artillery crews might try the videogame thing and engage the tanks with direct fire for dramatic effect but since they are not deliberately designed to do that, the tanks would destroy them with their superior mobility, optics and by virtue of the fact that a tank is meant to do exactly that. In a broader, more realistic setup, the artillery would stand more of a chance if it has spotters directing their fires at the tanks over longer distances. If the artillery has precision-guided shells like Copperhead, Excalibur, Krasnopol or other types of smart ammunition, possibly carrying guided submunitions, then the artillery may well win. At the end of the day, it depends on whether the artillery can exploit its range and if reconnaissance and shell technology allow for precision fire. But if the artillery has neither and the tanks are bound to discover the battery eventually, then they would probably win. Tanks are designed to destroy other tanks, so a slower, larger, top-heavy SPH, armoured as it may be, will be at a major disadvantage in a direct encounter.

[Star_Abraham]

You guys are pretty messed up for not admitting the best military name is Pvt. Parts

[Jet02]

Cost and manufacturing limitations aside...

How would an ace combat style floating fortress/airborne aircraft carrier do irl?

[{Lads}RikerZZZ]

Probably terrible as it would be super easy to cripple and a super easy target to hit. Theres a reason submarines exist lol

[(USA)Bruce]

Cost and manufacturing limitations aside...

How would an ace combat style floating fortress/airborne aircraft carrier do irl?

That depends, does it have a few nuclear reactors inside that can power lazers strong enough to counter balistic anti air like S-400's? If so then still not so great because theres navy ships that use lazers and a lazer avenger design is being used if not widely.

[(USA)Bruce]

Unrelated question;
Nuclear naval vessels

How or why are they legal? IF theese things saw combat then doesnt anyone care about the radaiation leaks? Is there some sort of geneva convention rule that forces the opposing side to clean up?

Like In a scenerio where russia will have its only carrier upgraded to nuclear capabilities, what if it got sunk? The risks are staggering for the enviorment

[MARS]

Since when does any military care about the environmental hazards that would arise if their hardware is destroyed/used? Nuclear power was a game changer for naval forces, especially
submarines, which have since become a vital element of the nuclear trident for any country that has them and that development won't be wound back via some treaty anytime soon.

[NikCaputnic]

IMHO, I really don't think that after someone destroys a nuclear-powered naval vessel, anyone in the world will care about the environment, because people will mostly care about how to escape the consequence of such act (or how to survive through them).

Also, there already were accidents with nuclear-powered submarines in the past, and yet they still all together barely produced such amount of radiation leaks similar to what current industrial wastes do.

[Ally]

And now for something completely different.





Makeshift Iraqi rocket (MLRS?) Humvee.

[Jet02]

Remimds me of this picture of a technical armed with a aircraft rocket pod.

[(USA)Bruce]

Apparently the French armys been using attack birds to kill drones

Call me skeptical, I dont see the place of animals in the next generation of warfare, like you could say that this is only for counter terrorist cell operations.Say to deny terrorists the use of drones to recon a potential target....But isnt there a more reliable way to do this?



What do you guys think?
Does this have any merrit? Wouldnt counter drones be more effective? Or is this just the first step for the french armed forces to geneticlly engineer the eagles or hawks from lord of the rings to hunt globalhawks?

[spookspook]

Apparently the French armys been using attack birds to kill drones

Call me skeptical, I dont see the place of animals in the next generation of warfare, like you could say that this is only for counter terrorist cell operations.Say to deny terrorists the use of drones to recon a potential target....But isnt there a more reliable way to do this?



What do you guys think?
Does this have any merrit? Wouldnt counter drones be more effective? Or is this just the first step for the french armed forces to geneticlly engineer the eagles or hawks from lord of the rings to hunt globalhawks?

For cheap civilian drones I'm sure birds can be effective but for larger military drones with better propellers I don't think the birds would be very effective considering the blades would do quite a number on their feet. The navy laser weapon system looks very promising for use against drones though.

[NikCaputnic]

What do you guys think?

If the subject is relatively-small and not overcomplicated reconnaissance drones, then why should one use animals\other drones to take out other drones, when you can simply turn it off\intercept the signal and take control of that drone? AFAIK, most modern ECM and electronic-warfare methods allow it with enough skills.

[3rdShockArmy]

Well, AFAIK, civilian drones could potentially be used by terrorists or criminals, so it's important to have a reliable counter to this. EW could be used, of course, but maybe not fast enough. A predator bird (eagles, hawks, etc) can be even more effective if properly trained.

[Jet02]

*not related to current topic whatsoever*

The j-20 just entered service. What do you guys think about that?

[acidbrain]

It wouldnt surprise me if the future of warfare will be on a nano scale, nanobots are already used, it's a matter of waiting until it is weaponized...
Almost undetectable, you can use drones to spread the nanobots, they will be inhaled by the "enemy" and do what they are programmed for, a perfect ethnic weapon because they can analyse the dna of the "victim" and execute the program or selfdestruct when an ally inhales one...
It wouldnt surprise me at all if the majority of the people on this planet already have nanobots in themselves doing their thing, big pharma loves it because they can cause health problems for example and big pharma provides the cure...
Killing people doesnt make money for the ruling elite, sick people who need medicine for the rest of their lives make a lot of money, ever wondered why Fukushima is still blowing a sjitload of radioactivity into the atmosphere and ocean?, cancer is big business, they make an average of about $20000 to $100000 with chemotheraphy per patient so do the math.
It's a war against us 'we the people' for many many years now and only a few have eyes to see through the smokescreen of deception, the war between countries is just a facade, less then 0,1% of the people on this planet want war and yet about 10 countries are not at war at the moment, who bennefits?, not us, nope, the elite banker families such as the Rothschilds, JP Morgan, the Rockefellers, the Warburgs and people like George Soros, Bill Gates etc...
Did you know that George Soros and Bill Gates own a biological weapons factory together? just do some research, Bill Gates also wants to vaccinate the world population with poison which will kill you slowly...
Again i say it is a war against us 'we the people', you can say im a nutcase and maybe youre right but just look around you with an unbiassed mind and see what is really going on on this planet, it is just sickening how a few create a living hell for the many...
Why in Gods name do people shoot at eachother? because they are being told to do it or religion, people who blindly follow orders or a religion are the most dangerous people on this planet and there are a lot of them and thats why we live in the mess it is nowadays, always at war or at the brink of war...The best industry there is and who bennefits?, not us...

This post has been edited by acidbrain: 11 Mar 2017, 9:37

[MARS]

Whilst there is certainly a future military potential for nanotechnology, including programmable nanomachines, much of the technology is still theoretical at best and even if you could use it to develop biological agents that target specific genetic patterns - which I do agree would probably be possible down the line and attempted at least once - the 'future of warfare' will likely remain conventional, i.e. military forces armed with weapons fighting over objectives. Even if we imagine genetically engineered bioweapons, warfare will always come down to ground control. You can bomb an area, burn it, nuke it, depopulate it, but at the end of the day, you will only truly control it for your own use if you have troops on the ground that occupy it, even if said troops may or may not be robotic in the future.

Now, this is mostly off-topic from the military subject matter of this thread, but I want to add some thoughts on it. I do acknowledge that there are powerful, wealthy groups and individuals - many of which you mention - which have far more pervasive and illegitimate influence over politics than they deserve. That's true and there is a real danger in that which I recognise but I just want to point out that some of the more dramatic allegations you're putting out there, like grumpy old Soros and Bill Gates 'owning a biological weapons factory together' require more in the way of evidence than simply saying 'just do some research'. Yes, there is a lot of bad things going on in the world, but to view all of them (diseases, environmental destruction, wars, etc) through the lens of a conspiracist narrative is arguably just as false, oversimplified and misguided as believing everything the mainstream media report at face value. Conspiracist narratives lack the nuance that is necessary to understand real world issues. For instance, it is not so simple as saying that wars only happen because industries benefit from them. Wars have always been a recurring theme of human history, even predating capitalism and industry, because humans naturally associate in tribes and tribes compete for territory, resources and influence, because the natural resources and strategic areas of the planet are obviously not evenly distributed. It is as simple as that. It also has little to do with religion. While its true that religion is often brought into a conflict in order to try justify the agenda behind the war, to get people more emotionally invested in the fight than you would by simply telling them 'they have resources that we want therefore war', there are plenty of conflicts in which it doesn't play a critical role, more so in relatively recent decades than past centuries. For instance, how exactly did religion prompt people to fight in the American revolution, the Napoleonic Wars, WW1, WW2, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Falklands War and a whole variety of others? Again, reality is more complex than the simplifying narrative that 'people fight for religion'. I've already seen too many edgetard anti-theist comments beating that particular drum of a cliche and I find it trite, annoying and simplistic.

This post has been edited by MARS: 11 Mar 2017, 16:00

[3rdShockArmy]

Regarding the J-20, it seems to me the Chinese are in a bit of a hurry and that never ends up being good. Just look at the F-35. I'm pretty sure it would have been better if the countries involved in the JSF program waited a couple of years more until all the problems are solved instead of pressing the jet into service for marketing reasons. Look at the Russians. They have been delaying the T-50 for a couple of years and it's already giving some results (allocating more resources intended for the production of the new airframes, to the development of the new engine has saved at least 5 years of more work on it) and now they will be able to produce a truly new jet, and also buy enough of the jets to make a difference. Also, the thing is that multirole aircraft are just a nice concept, but that's all. Specialized jets are much more cost-effective. What an F-35 can do in CAS call, an A-10 can do better, for a fraction of the price. The same goes for air-to-air combat. No way an F-35 can outperform a Raptor in air-to-air. The alleged point of saving costs by making a jack-of-all-trades jet which would replace a multitude of aircraft resulted in quite the opposite. This is also valid for a T-50. Although officially a multirole jet, it's more of an air-superiority aircraft and it could never be better than a Su-34 in CAS or hell, even a Su-25 or Su-24. And I'm not even gonna talk about cost-effectivness of using these dedicated CAS aircraft over the T-50.

As for the nanobots, I agree with Mars. You can't get ahead of yourself.

This post has been edited by 3rdShockArmy: 11 Mar 2017, 21:03

[Jet02]

There's this air combat tactic that's been in use since the beginning of air combat itself.

It involves doing a steep vertical climb when being chased. If all goes well, the aggressor will lose momentum and eventually stall, turning the tables.

Is this still a viable tactic now? Why? And is there a counter to it(other than to use aircraft with a higher service ceiling?)

Also the j-20 in its current configuration does not seem to have any short range weaponry of any sort. Is this a wise decision? And why?

[Ally]

There's this air combat tactic that's been in use since the beginning of air combat itself.

It involves doing a steep vertical climb when being chased. If all goes well, the aggressor will lose momentum and eventually stall, turning the tables.

Is this still a viable tactic now? Why? And is there a counter to it(other than to use aircraft with a higher service ceiling?)

Also the j-20 in its current configuration does not seem to have any short range weaponry of any sort. Is this a wise decision? And why?

You must be talking about the Pugachev's Cobra, the air maneuver devised during the Soviets attempt at conquering Afghanistan which was meant to aid against MANPADS everywhere. I do not know, my specialty is not air combat but I supposed these days a AMRAAM flying up your tail would just work alright. Also, depending on the battlespace certain maneuvers simple cannot be executed. High intensity conflict a là potential WW3 Europe would necessitate any and all combat airplanes to stick closely to the ground in order to avoid air radars and systems like S-400 and Patriot everywhere.

The Chinese J-20 is a quite an interesting combat airplane. From what I understand it was designed to be less costly than other 5G airplanes (I'm meaning US projects) and produced with an focus on export to friendly countries like Pakistan and others. I have a friend who was a pilot in the Swiss Air Force (yes, Switzerland does have a modern, effective air power) and she basically says that the problem of PR China today is in the reliance on multiple aircraft models and on foreign-based munitions. Essentially, China has the same problem with the air force that the Soviet Union had in the pre-WW2 times.

If you want to better understand the deal you would need to look more closely in the Chinese military strategy of AD/A2 and the belief of its leadership that fast retaliation strikes with large number of airplanes and vessels are enough as a efficient counterattack. The modernization of the air force, which arguably saw neglect in recent years despite its cadre being of the most experienced in the PLA is one the middle-term objectives. You can observe things like the popular J-20 or the already (partially) deployed Y-8 or Y-20 or H-6K series of transport and ASW airplanes. These examples are meant to function as effective deterrents against a threat that would most likely first use its air naval power in the form of powerful carrier strike groups. This is probably why the J-20 was initially designed with such a combat payload. How will the J-20 fare in actual combat scenario around, lets say, the Taiwan Strait? I don't know. But I do know that the Chinese industry had significant problems with the quality of military production and even cases of 4-5 different models being developed that broke down in test.

The Chinese military is modernizing itself and one must look at it in a broader spectrum. Not only in the example of the J-20 but also in the restructuring attempt of the naval infantry battalions into functional naval assault divisions, the construction of new military installations around the Spratly Islands and even the recent diplomatic scuffle around the THAAD deployment in South Korea. Xi Jinping apparently feels concerned about this degrading the Chinese second strike capabilities and putting into question the effectiveness of The People's Liberation Army Rocket Force. Furthermore, one must also take into the account how the training regime and the society has changed. From the practice of picking out adult conscripts which had certain prior knowledge of a trade and them educating them in the barracks to the establishment of dedicated military technical universities. From the former Second Artillery Corps being staffed by NCOs who were geeks or Internet addicts because such people therefore obviously must have incredible knowledge about how a ballistic missile operates to specialization artillery school courses.



I am not sure if my writing now is going dreadfully off-topic and sounds like a NATO academy lecture but, If you do wish to learn more you can always PM me for details.