Comments by "The Immortal" (@theimmortal4718) on "Military History not Visualized" channel.

  1. 3
  2. 3
  3. 2
  4. 2
  5. 2
  6. 1
  7. 1
  8. 1
  9. 1
  10. 1
  11. 1
  12. 1
  13. 1
  14. 1
  15. 1
  16. 1
  17. 1
  18. 1
  19. 1
  20. 1
  21. 1
  22.  @TheGreatAmphibian  Because you can't just fly drones all day. Especially smaller group 1 and group 2 drones. Anything group 3 or higher is a priority for every fighter and SAM battery in the area. Smaller class 1 and 2 drones have limited use in rough weather and short sortie times. The average lifespan of a drone in Ukraine is 3 flights, and it's destroyed. Armies are rushing to field AAA systems more capable and more economical to counter them. It's not economical to fire a $40,000 stinger to shoot a small drone down, so airburst autocannon with optical suites are being rushed into service, paired with manpads and ATGMs on one turret. Every army is doing this. Eyes on the ground, whether it be an infantry squad, a manned vehicle, or a UGV, are needed to observe a space on the ground. Flying aircraft around searching for targets is a quick way to get shot down. Think about this- every major army in the world is going the direction that I'm discussing. Every, single, one. You can't name a country that isn't. Much more time, energy, and money is being spent on cracking this nut than designing the next large MBT. If I told you 25 years ago that scout helicopters and planes would be replaced with drones, you would have called them "toys" and laughed it off. Instead, they are changing warfare by the year. You will also notice the trend of mortars and low recoil artillery mounted on trucks, capable of firing a quick 5 it 6 rounds and then dispersing within 60 seconds to avoid counter battery fire. Towed artillery firing from a prepared position for hours at a time is quickly becoming a thing of the past. Shoot ahf scoot. Even attack helicopters are avoiding passing lines, as they quickly get targetted and eliminated. None of this is fantasy. This is the direction armies are going right now. Yes, quick and agile truck mounted missile systems like HIMARS are important, but they're only one layer. An important one for sure, as they can wipe out C4 assets and ammo and fuel points, starving heavy vehicle assets. After all, the best way to "kill" a tank force is to destroy his resupply. What IS a fantasy is to think that long range, multimillion dollar missiles can win wars, or that drones can fly around all day unmolested. Combined arms warfare still applies, it's just getting more advanced.
    1
  23. 1
  24.  @TheGreatAmphibian  Why does a light vehicle sound expensive to you, but a tank that's a dozen times more expensive sounds cheap to you? How does that make sense to you? Battleships don't exist anymore. Why does the navy still have ships? Even the aircraft carrier is being rethought. Doesn't make armed vessels obsolete, just because aircraft and missiles exist. Still have to have ships in the area to recognize a threat. Why not have heavy armor? You haven't been listening at all. Too heavy, requires too much support, too easily targeted, and can't fire without a massive flash and noise signature, just to name a few. What missions will future armor be intended for? The same missions they're used for now. Fire support for ground troops, deep penetration and exploitation of enemy lines, destroying enemy heavy weapons as they appear, and holding ground in defensive ops. The Russians and Ukrainians have both lost thousands of pieces of heavy armor. Other armies are looking at how to avoid this. Your solution of just firing missiles at area targets or saturating the area with targets for AAA to shoot down isn't useful. THOSE are your expensive assets you can't afford to throw away. A HIMARS GMRLS missile costs 150k per round. A tomahawk cruise missile costs about 2 million a shot. The basis of warfare is thus- 1. Find the enemy 2. Fix the enemy 3. Destroy the enemy Air assets with heavy artillery can do a lot, but not everything. Why have automatic weapons, ATGMs, mortars, grenade machine guns, autocannons, and support guns when you can "just" fire missiles from miles away? Because the enemy is trying NOT to get shot, just like you are. He has a vote. He's not going to stand out in the open waving his arms for your drones to spot him. However, vehicles that stand out like a sore thumb like a 70 ton, 8 foot tall and 25 foot tall tank has a pretty tough job of avoiding detection. The US Army just bought the Griffin Ii light tank, but I think at 28 tons it's still going to be too heavy and big.
    1
  25. 1
  26. 1
  27. 1
  28.  @TheGreatAmphibian  You think missiles are just "flying around searching for targets with radar", huh? That's not how that works, kid. Armored vehicles don't have to be radar absorbing, as ground radars are very limited and rare. THOSE would be a potential target, as they're emitting a radar signal. And a drone using search radar to find ground targets would be a beacon for everything within miles to shoot it down. The last thing you want it to be doing is sending out an active signal. Drones use passive sensors, usually day cameras or FlIR. You don't want a search radar trying to ping off of vehicles. A drone large enough to carry a radar or brimstones is going to be large and expensive like a Group 4 UCAV, at least $5 million. That's an expensive drone to just fly around and look for targets of opportunity. Everything for miles would love to shoot that down. You can't count on something like that unless your enemy has no AAA network to speak of. Otherwise, you're just flushing your expensive drones down the toilet.. The brimstone is just like a hellfire- a laser guided missile. You have to see a target to use it. All the more reason for that vehicle to be small and harder to see. That's not the own you think it is. You really don't know where you're going with this, do you? I say we should continue the route we're already going with smaller armored vehicles and remote weapon systems and you lose your mind. Look at yourself. The thought of the military retiring the MBT and going with something smaller and more agile really eats you up inside. You just can't stand the thought, can you? You've been arguing fir hours up one dude and down the other that it's heavy tank or nothing at all, then you claim there's nowhere to hide because drones with search radars will be scouring the ground for anything they can shoot a $200,000 missile at. At the same time claiming a 10 million dollar tank or firijg if $200k/ missle is worth it, yet spending a million on a light armored vehicle is wasteful. And at the SAME time claiming ground troops aren't needed at ALl since we can just blow the whole place up with huge amounts of ordinance from hundreds of miles away with hundreds of millions in missiles. You claimed we don't ANY vehicles, or men in a war. Just missiles. You're all over the place, man. You can't get a clear thought out before you're bouncing to the next. You're arguing with your prior comments! 🤡
    1
  29. 1
  30. 1