Comments by "The Immortal" (@theimmortal4718) on "Military History not Visualized"
channel.
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The best stealth tank going forward is going to be something a scout car with Stanag LVL 4 armor, an ATGM or loitering munitions launcher, and an RWS for self defense. It needs to have a low profile, a huge battery APU for extended use of electronics without firing up the motor, and low ground pressure. This will mean wheeled, preferably 6x6, as a mine can take out a wheel but the vehicle can still move. If it's tracked, it will be stopped and need hours to repair.
Anything that chews up the ground like a tracked vehicle will be able to be tracked by air. A sophisticated thermal dampening camouflage "ghillie suit" covering the entire vehicle will be necessary to hide from being spotted by scout drones. All weapons need to be dismountable by the crew and scouts in order to stow the vehicle and fight from hidden and prepared fighting positions with thermal overhead cover. It also needs to be able to be operated remotely via cable do if it's targetted, the crew is tucked in a hide nearby.
It needs to be fast. The longer it takes to bound to its next position is more time to be acquired, targetted, and engaged. Gone are the days of heavy armored assaults. Even logistics will get smaller, and much of it will be accomplished with UGVs.
1
-
1
-
@TheGreatAmphibian
Lol. What? If war fighting was just about destruction, you'd just carpet bomb the entire country from 100,000 feet. You have a deep misunderstanding of combat.
If that were true, why even have a military at all? Just disband the infantry and armor branches completely. That's not the case, at all. It IS still about taking and holding objectives, which means infantry.
All else is ultimately, support.
Something like a JLTV or a Pamdur ticks most of the boxes for less than a million. I don't get where you get the idea that light armor is more expensive. The stealth portion mostly comes from a smaller and lighter vehicle, fuel efficiency, a larger APU, and camouflaged netting with thermal shielding. All of these are pretty low cost.
It's a dilemma regarding drones. They're integrated,. You're not choosing one over the other, but rather what has a higher chance of survival and being effective in that environment.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
@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
-
@TheGreatAmphibian
Who said "a single one"? You sure love to fight strawman arguments. I never said one drone. I said "you can't fly drones all day".
As in, anything you put in the air for too long will get downed. They have to be up for a purpose, and not stay up for long. Between direction finding, EM, AAA and manpads, they will get shot down often. Like I said, it's got maybe 3 flights in it. We're even using switchblade 300s to shoot them down.
All these weapons are used to support the ground troops, not being used instead of them. Unless you also have a fantasy that troops will walk everywhere, they will ride in vehicles. All vehicles have weaknesses, whether it be mines, direct fire, missiles, or indirect fire. It's all a balance as to what you're willing to accept as far as vulnerabilities. Most vehicles in a combat zone dont have the protection that a tank or heavy IFV do, but we still employ them.
You might think that's crazy, but we do.
We've come a long way from the m113 abd the unarmored Humvee, but even vehicles like that have their place. We also use MRZRs, the ISV, and the Flyer 72, all of which have absolutely no armor, just roll bars.
Why? You tell me.
1
-
1
-
@TheGreatAmphibian
You're so arrogant that you don't understand just what it is you don't understand.
Do you know what a camo net is? Do you know how it's employed? If not, go ahead and read up on it before you reply. The blanket doesn't touch the vehicle. It's used to camouflage it when it's sitting still.
You just don't understand combat, and it shows glaringly.
Every single thing I'm talking about is already in the US inventory. Did you realize that? . Obviously not, huh?
You'd really freak out if you realized we have these things called light infantry brigades and Stryker Brigades and..... GASP! No tanks! What do they ride around in? Is it..... light armored vehicles? No way! TheGreatAmphibian said that's suicidal, fellas . Just stop that right now. He said you can't do that.
And whatever you do, don't look up the Stryker Dragoon or the Shorad. Don't bother researching the JLTV with the protector RWS . Don't want to accidentally get an education, would you?
Yeah, the Army and USMC are just wasting money on those systems, according to you. Same with Stryker Brigades outfitting 50% of their vehicles with the CROWS-J.
TheGreatAmphibian says those weapons are obsolete, already. We should be spending the whole budget on long range missiles. He said it, it must be so.
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1