Youtube comments of Hyok Kim (@hyokkim7726).
-
47
-
25
-
02:20 IJA used to call that 'advancing to the rear'!
During WW2, the Red Army had suffered similar setbacks, even after Stalingrad, and they had applied the similar logic, just a ploy to pin the Germans while attacking another area. The thing is the German victories in these Soviet setbacks were merely tactical, barely at the operational level, not strategic level. It didn't restore the strategic momentum back to the Germans.
So the defeats/victories do not really matter by themselves, unless it changes the strategic momentum.
03:59 Brilliant tactics, but please remember tactics win battles, they don't win wars. Both the Finns in 'Winter War', and IJA in 'Khalkin Gol' had done better than the Ukrainians tactically. The Red Army won due to primarily better logistics, and the implementation of optimal operational strategy, not through better tactics.
05:21 A far bigger version had taken place in the Third battle of Kharkov: The Red Army had made the similar mistake, which Manstein took advantage of, winning a victory at the operational level.
But it did not change the strategic momentum, merely operational momentum, which the Germans squandered in Kursk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Battle_of_Kharkov
05:53 What do you think of a leadership willing to pour in more lives/resources into a money pit, like Hitler would have done, and IJA would have done? You thank them!
On the other hand, Stalin/Zukov authorized the withdrawal of the Red Army during 'Winter War', and 'Khalkin Gol', at the operational/tactical level when the going got tough.
They re-grouped, rested for about a month, before attacking again, using different tactics, and that was that.
The strategic momentum still hadn't changed.
06:49 Yes, that's exactly what Stalin had done in 'Winter War', after the first major offensives failed ignominiously. Finns used brilliant tactics, in many areas, called 'Motti', to chop up the Soviet supply lines, separated the armored from the infantry, and pick them up one, by one.
https://winterwar.com/Tactics/mottis.htm
All in all, the Red Army had suffered far bigger defeats than the Russian Federation Military, absolutely nothing to show after losing so many people and the resources! At least, Putin got something in the South, absolutely nothing for the Red Army.
09:48 Oh! I don't know about that. If you're talking about regular Russian troops, you are right. But what about Wagner Group/Syrian/Chechen mercenaries?
During WW2, NKVD sometimes wore German uniforms and committed massacres against their own people, especially Volga Germans, in order to create suspicion from potentially willing collaborators.
I think it was a false flag.
Pros and Cons, true, that they could not defend even a minor target in their own area could make them look incompetent, but also it could enrage the Russian population that the Ukrainians would dare to attack resources inside Russia, and give even more support to Putin. In fact, recent polling by more or less independent polling company, Putin's rating went through the roof.
So let's contrast that with the Soviet Union during Barbarossa, the proven incompetence of the Red Army, did it hurt Stalin, politically, or help him?
Support for Stalin went through the roof, even the nominally anti-communist Orthodox believers supporting Stalin, even the traditionally anti-government, any government, whether tsarist or Communist, many professional gangsters ended up joining for the Red Army, and of course, the more traditional professional gangster who refused to support the war effort labeled them as 'bitches', and it created a big internal war among prisoners after WW2, when the gangsters who had served in the Red Army returned to the prison.
Now, look at U.S. after Pearl Harbor, the proven incompetence of USN, did it demoralize the American public or enrage them?
12:01 Brilliant and very balanced analysis. However, what do you think of chances of any Western company helping Ukraine extract gas right next Russian border considering political risk?
Ukraine is unlikely to be able to use those gas for export.
If Ukraine wanted to recapture the Eastern part, then they would have to come to the Russians, this would greatly extend the supply lines for the Ukrainians, whereas Russians would have a considerably shortened supply lines, with overwhelming advantage in armors and artillery. This was the situation in 'Khalkin Gol'.
Also, namely in the battle of Kursk, the Red Army wanted the Germans to come to Kursk to the defense in depth they had prepared for them.
Now, in 'Khalkin Gol', IJA fought really well, tactically, both in offensive and defensive, but due to supply line being far longer than the Red Army, with far smaller logistics base to begin with, they were doomed eventually. In fact, IJA had fought so well to the point, they could have won a victory, offensive one at that, by a knock out, but they ran out of artillery shells, the same problem that would lead to the defeat for the Finns in 'Winter War', and the same problem plaguing the Ukrainians, the lack of artillery shells.
16:11 Why U.S. is going to let MBS get away with Kashoggi murder, as it should be.
17:45 Kiev was supposed to be a big bonus, but they didn't get it. Can't say I blame them for trying, in wars, many times, the enemy is a lot weaker than they seemed at first, then you get lucky. U.S. 3rd Army under Patton won many battles that way, during the 'Rampage', the Germans were a lot weaker than many U.S. and British generals had thought.
Of course, eventually, one's going to overextend and meet enemy resistance stronger than expected, as even Patton found out.
19:22 Yes, typical Soviet/Russian operational strategic thinking that defeated both the Germans and Japanese, despite the tactical superiority of both, even the Soviets acknowledged as much.
20:20 Oh, yes, logistics the most under-rated part of war by the most. That's what had happened to IJA in Khalkin Gol, running out of ammo, food, even water, so that they ended up drinking foul smelling/tasting water from radiators of vehicles! No oil left anyway, so why not?
IJA had been 'winning' tactically both offensive and defensive, against overwhelming odds.
20:38 That shows how much advanced IJA was tactically, sometimes. IJA had come up with that solution before anyone.
Type 92 Battalion Gun, U.S. Army put to good use captured ones, exactly for that reason.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_92_battalion_gun
A corollary would be French breech loading direct fire dual purpose mortar.
It was the first mass production, of its kind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandt_Mle_CM60A1
21:15 Ukraine still hasn't changed the strategic imbalance, only an operational one. Both Finns and IJA had done better.
I hear that Ukraine doesn't publish its casualty list unlike the Finns, and even IJA. I also hear Ukraine forbids men in fighting age from leaving the country. I don't think that was the case with the Finns, or UPA, also running out of supplies, especially artillery shells, the 'railroad' of battlefield suppression, implying Ukraine wouldn't even have the stamina of the Finns or their ancestors, in the form of UPA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Insurgent_Army
Anyone interested in analyzing the battlefield development, you can take a look at 'Winter War', and 'Khalkin Gol', and reach your own conclusion.
Thanks for great, impartial, objective analysis. Btw. You might say I am 'Pro-Russian' on this one. Not just because Russia has a 'historical' right, (Russia had annexed the vast swarth of lands, in Urals and the area now known as Russian Far East, committing mass murder and robbery, but how come no protest?) just like ROK and the previous Korean kingdoms have in Jeju island, but also ROK would need a dependable ally, post-PRC, against possible/almost certain ROC/Taiwan-Japanese alliance.
22
-
16
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
@jimpark8379 ''German weapons are ridiculously expensive and break, or massively underperform, like how the Turkish Leopards just got blown up so easily because of their design flaws....''
To be fair to the Turkish Leopards, their failure was mainly due to faulty tactics in urban environment, than hardware failures. The way the Turks used the Leopards, pretty much every other MBTs would have failed, other than the latest Merkava with their iron vision, but then IDF has a plenty of experience using armors in a terrain not suitable for traditional MBTs.
''Even Germany can't maintain the Leopard. Over half their Leopard tanks are out of service because they don't have enough spare parts.''
I didn't know that, but still that is way better than vaunted Eurofighters, which has even lower reliability rates, almost bordering or even 'surpassing' in the wrong way PRC fighter jets.
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
10:01 Right on! Autoloader is the future, especially when the next stage of MUM-T comes along, the autonomous war engines.
13:40 Yes, very perceptive, you should have gone to West Point, become a general, and consultant to MIC after the military, making millions.
14:53 Again, I am impressed, especially you're an infantry man, not a tanker. Yes, one very important reason why the German Panzer III/IV performed so well against the vaunted T-34s during Operation Barbarossa was the optics. The German gun optic was far superior to the Soviet T-34 gun optics, especially given the extended range the tanks engaged in.
This 'superior' German optics was less of an advantage against the Shermans, especially during the 'Rampage', the range was far shorter, and the Shermans had a wider field of view, giving them advantage in close quarter fighting.
17:36 Also, it can become smaller, lower profile, especially an advantage during hull down position, also lighter means it can rotate faster, and the center of gravity is going to be lower, a big advantage in mountainous terrain, CG is very important in hilly terrain, one reason why Merkavas performed poorly in hilly areas, and why ROK eventually decided against Merkavas.
19:22 That is THE eventual goal of K2.
19:33 On this the Russian made a mistake: they should have gone for the gas turbine engine like M1, in fact, that's what they had in T-80, which ROK had bought back in early 90s, in lieu of cash payment during the financial collapse, and not only that, but ended up getting full spec T-80, not downgraded export version, like they almost always do with the latest advanced weapon platform, (just like U.S.), at the time, only the Moscow Guard units had T-80.
ROK originally had wanted to use T-80 as a 'red' team training only, ROK tank crews had had a very low, stereotypical view of the Russian weapons at the time, and pleasantly surprised at the creature comfort, workmanship, build quality of T-80, to the point at one time, wanted to purchase more, a lot more T-80s, and even entertained the thought of license producing T-80, in ROK, and adopt as the new MBTs to replace K-1.
Quiet, reliable, fast, it is still used for Recon-in-Force brigade, for front line service.
20:01 Right on, and one of my criticism of F-35, and why U.S. military is going to replacing them pretty soon.
22:11 That's what happens when one is obsessed with tactical application, rather than operational, strategic application.
22:31 You're better than average. Thanks for the most objective video on tank I've seen to date. This video puts almost all other tank videos, even the ones done by 'experts' to shame.
6
-
@jimpark8379 '' First, the German powerpack is the best and Korean powerpack is second. There is no debate or controversy on this issue. Even the Koreans acknowledge the superiority of the German powerpack.
Re the Omani trials, I read the Leopard 2 got stuck, which is not a failure of the powerpack it's just the Leopard is too heavy, and that the K2 variant tested by the Omanis had the German powerpack.''
Didn't K2 variant produced, the lot 2, use hybrid powerpack, ROK engine, German transmission?
What I have read from ROK channels was that the testing that faulted ROK powerpak was not designed fair; the German powerpaks were allowed to be maintained per maintenence schedule, while ROK powerpak were continously run, without maintenence. That's per the technicians from Doosan, and ST Dynamics.
Not only that the so-called, 'failure' of ROK powerpak was due to the failure of the neighboring components to the transmission, a German component!
''The MTU engine generates the same horsepower as the Hyundai Doosan Infracore engine but it weighs 1,000 pounds less due to its, in the words of Korean engineers, "insane cooling tech." 1,000 pounds lighter is a huge advantage.''
Didn't K2 use ROK engine with the German transmission in Omani trial, and still won the test?
In MBTs, weighing along 60 to 70 tons, 0.5 ton is a miniscule advantage.
There's more than just power to weight performance advantage in engine, for military gears. Reliability, durability, robustness over rough terrain/weather, the ease of maintenance, and the overall cost, both initial, and maintenance.
Why Ferrari makes great formula 1 racing engine, but not a car to drive day to day; why both UK and even U.S. are going to ditch F-35. Why ROK is working on 'hard coat baked' stealth coating instead of F-35's 'soft panel' stealth coating. For the present, F-35 'soft panel' stealth coating is superior in minimizing radar cross section, but ROK 'hard coat baked' stealth coating is far superior when it comes to robustness, durability, and maintenance, and its ability to minimize the radar cross section is steadily improving.
''The Germans are the world's best at diesel engines and among the world's best at heavy duty transmissions along with the Alison company of USA. The ZF 8 speed transmission is perhaps the best automatic transmission ever made.''
Didn't Himsen engine win both IF and Red Dot awards in 2010?
Not only that, the word I hear from Norway is that K2 is winning over Leopard.
6
-
@d.o.g573 ''ROK doesn’t even have plans for a fifth gen tank''
K3, supposed to work with Poles; supposed to incorporate rail gun eventually, thermal camf, stealth against tactical ground radar, with built in unmanned option.
Btw, ROK might even invent a new category of armored platform that could make MBTs obsolete.
quadrupedal robot control technology, that's like AT-AT from Star Wars, but better, faster, more stable on rough terrain, and autonomous.
DreamWaQer technology that can help run a robot run 'blind'.
''for the plane: I am not a Chinese „war thunder“ player….''
Germany has no plan for 5th gen fighter jets. ROK is working on KF-21, is supposed to incorporate virtual laser turret that will revolutionize the dog fights by 2035. Plus an ability to launch microsatellites from ultra high altitude to low orbit on demand, in real time. This could be the bid for space domination, dominate the space, dominate GPS guided weapons, with advances in thermal sensor, detect even nuclear powered submarined beneath the waves.
Also, autonomous stealth fighters, Kaori-X, 1 manned KF-21 'managing' 3 to 4 Kaori-X.
Plus UCAV for ROKA, that's like, but better than USMC Osprey, safer, more reliable.
Night Intruder 500 Vectored Thrust (NI-500VT)
F-35 Germany relies on, even U.S and U.K. are planning to ditch them, due to poor QA.
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@jimpark8379 Here, I am talking about optimal course of action, from future grand strategic perspective, not just current short term financial.
ROK needs Turkiye to build the bridgehead into EU, V4, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary. Turkiye is the 'gatekeeper' to V4, and EU, in turn.
ROK wants to build hyper tube trade route across Central Asia, boosting trade, and building an alliance, relying Pan-Turanism. Without Turkiye, ROK cannot get to V4, and EU.
With the alliance secure, ROK would have 'built-in' customers for both military and civilian goods.
As far as Poles are concerned, I agree ROK should not grant as generous deal as Turkiey got, but keeping the current technology too secret is not in the optimal interest of ROK.
The reason being, the state of art technology has rather a short, shelf life. It's either use it or lose it. Not only that, keeping the technology too secret makes one's platform becoming the standard that much more difficult. Also, it would make the domestic companies too complacent relying on patent protection, rather than continued excellence in innovation.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@peterisawesomeplease ''It is also not a good idea to trust what the US military says. The US military has a long history of building massively expensive projects of little military value due to pressure from politics or the military industrial complex.''
Yes, Billy Mitchell found out the hard way!
As for my own objective analysis, aircraft carriers can make force projection more efficient and effective than without, so long as you have either the air superiority or have a very good chance of gaining air superiority.
If not, then air craft carriers are money pits, and gigantic waste of resources.
For U.S. for present, carriers are assets, within reason, especially against PRC.
But in the future, where U.S. might have less chance of gaining air superiority, USN should gradually downsize the number of carriers. Unless it is for the purpose of launching suborbital fighter force, rather than conventional carrier tasks.
For majority of countries out there, carriers are a waste of money. Just because a superpower has and uses them, it doesn't mean they should emulate the superpowers, unless they are contenders.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@danushairan Just read the book; it explains in great detail why the Soviets would have collapsed. The author is an objective USMC strategist/tactician. No bs, unlike many USMCs.
Moscow wasn't a just a capitol. It was the railroad hub of the Western Russia, and main manufacturing center of the Red Army tank production.
All the Red Army units in Western Russia depended on the railroad, for the supply/logistics, and reinforcement, retreat. Once the German had taken Moscow, all the Red Army units in Western Russia would have been cut off from supplies/reinforcement/retreat/escape. Sitting Duck, waiting to die/disintegrate/captured.
Also, no more tanks for the Red Army in Western Russia; only other manufacturing center being Chelyabinsk, in Urals, too far away for help.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@chris8612 ''2 trillion plus for 20 years in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not much we got in return. ''
I commend you for being forthright on those money pits.
''80 billion for Ukraine while our troop aren't in the firing line, while trashing insane amounts of if Russia equipment. This is not even remotely comparable.''
80 billion is not the final investment. Janet Yellen said U.S. was going to be with Ukraine as long as it takes. Russian Federation is far stronger than those pseudo-religious nutjobs.
U.S. with boots on the ground, for more than a decade with all those resources couldn't defeat them; what make you think Zelensky and the corrupt Ukraine government could do what U.S. couldn't do.
Given U.S. was going to support them for the next 20 years, it would be about 2 trillion again.
''Even if you don't care about helping Ukraine, ....''
Do you know how many Ukrainians have died? Why do you think we should care about Ukraine?
''the amount of money for USA companies and tax revenue to be made is staggering.''
For MIC, and who foots the bill, U.S. taxpayers? It's the money that could have been used for infrastructure, the wall, for example, R&D for semi-conductors, or more pressing military needs, such as Space defense, SLBMs, decommissioning silo-based ICBMs, lasers, hypersonic missiles.
''Already the USA military complex has increased sales by 50%.''
....and that's the money that has come from U.S. taxpayers, what about their needs?
''Factories for mil hardware are already being built by top defense companies in Western Ukraine.''
For the benefit of MIC, and the locals, not U.S. taxpayers.
''
''It's not like Afghanistan where the biggest export is poppy for heroin.''
Again, I commend you for being forthright; too bad, Bush Jr. and the NeoCon gang didn't talk about that when U.S. invaded Afghanistan.
''It has massive mineral deposits, the biggest and best agricultural lands in Europe.''
Yes, and it will belong to Russian Federation.
''The country will have to be rebuilt, China won't get the contracts it will be the USA and European companies.''
You're putting the cart before the horse; it will be Russian companies and others such as ROK will get the contract. Not U.S. or the West.
''They are also saving us money, since much of the systems sent were near the end of their shelf life, the USA tax payers would have to pay for decommissioning old stocks.''
...but neither U.S. nor the rest of the West have built more modern, replacement yet. Soon, we're going to be running out of the old stock; are you implying that U.S. should give Ukraine the latest and most advanced weapons when that happens? Don't you think some of those could be captured by the Russians to examine, the strength and weakness, so that they could engineer better weapons to be used against the West?
''Most of the stuff sent was payed for in the 80s and 90s. It's not like we handed them a blank check for 80 billion dollars too what they want with.''
There is no accounting of what happened to the aid package, much of which could have been sold to black market; Ukraine is one of the most corrupt countries in the world.
How long do you think U.S. should keep pissing the resources into this money pit?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@j4genius961 ''Yes, I meant any breed can snap, ....''
Yes, I can agree with that.
''of course some breeds are a lot more chill ( Golden retrievers are my favorite and I'll buy one soon ) but even these can bite for a variety of reasons ( poor training, disease, bad mood etc etc )''
Yes, some golden retrievers are so docile, they will just stand there getting a beating for nothing from some bad owners, most of them will just flee.
But I have met a few golden retrievers who were snapping at me for nothing, I was just passing by.
I have met a few labs like that as well. One breed that is very underrated is Chihuahua, lucky it is so tiny, otherwise, they could be very dangerous, also some Yorkies as well.
On the other hand, one breed that is very over-rated for aggression is Tosa Inu. Most Tosas, are chill, docile. They are not naturally aggressive at all despite the reputation.
Ironically, only Tosas that are aggressive are the ones that had been spoilt rotten!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I used to support Vietnam war. Nowadays, I have opposed almost all the wars U.S. has engaged since then, (well, except the Gulf War, not to be confused with Iraq War, and the initial raid/invasion against Talis, but not the resulting occupation/nation building.)
Just in case, someone think I've become a peacenik, I still support the war against the Native Americans, and annexation of Hawaii, and take over of Panama from Columbia.
3
-
3
-
@jimpark8379 Poles will be the gateway to V4, and in turn, V4 will be the gateway to EU.
Turkiye is the gatekeeper to all of the above. With Turkiye, and V4 secure, ROK can build the hyper tube trade route through Central Asia, using Pan-Turanism will greatly help in the endeavor. ROK needs to very delicate in this matter; Turkiye is big on Pan-Turkism, which is a subset of Pan-Turanism, but she knows she cannot compete with ROK. So she's insisting Pan-Turkism is not compatible with Pan-Turanism. ROK needs to give the Turks wide berth, and let her come to the optimal conclusion based on reality on her own terms, and schedule.
After all, Erdogan swallowed his pride, and went to MBS to 'kiss' his ring, to save Turkish economy.
I expect more than just more civilian investments, but an alternative to NATO, for many in NATO.
What many small countries in NATO/EU care is the loss of sovereignty, not making the Russians 'pay'. What Russia fear is not the sovereignty of the small countries in NATO/EU, but the potential threat NATO presents to Russia.
ROK led alliance could offer both parties what they crave, guaranteed sovereignty for small countries in NATO/EU, and guaranteed peaceful, mutually productive existence to Russia.
3
-
3
-
@d.o.g573 It's a great system for now, outstanding spec, but it's not as upgradable as K9, no autoloader, meaning no upgrade path to MUM-T. Plus horrible value, too expensive, even considering its outstanding specs now.
MUM-T is the future: ROK is upgrading K9s to tactically mostly autonomous units, first starting with unmanned turret, and totally unmanned K9, mostly autonomous in the minor tactical matters, starting with 1 unmanned to 3 manned to eventually 1 manned, and 3 unmanned per platoon.
Experimentally, ROK is also working on entirely unmanned SPG platoons. MUM-T and eventually even entirely autonomous mechanized units will make a nation both far more effective and efficient militarily at the strategic level.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@450Garrett So how do you explain the Soviet breakthrough against the Germans, who had far safer, more ergonomic, tanks? Why, the Red Army simply had had more of them, and keep coming!
Or the German vs Americans. Overall, the Germans had better tanks, better crew, but the Americans had the numbers. No if, no buts about it. The Germans joked Sherman was a cigarette lighter. Yea, but more and more Shermans coming in. American crew had many times panic moments whenever they dealt with Tigers, and very often demoralized when they had to use damaged, but retrieved and repaired, but not cleaned Shermans from the remains of the former crews.
Still, Shermans won the war. Yes, the numbers, and cost effectiveness still count.
3
-
@zero11010 ''I mean, you can ask that question of ANY nation.''
How many nations bombed U.S.N. and allowed to get away with it?
''The US can be trusted?
Do you trust the government of Brazil?
Do you trust the government of France?
Do you trust the government of Greece?
Do you trust the government of Australia?
See how all of those questions are meaningless?''
How many of them bombed U.S.N. warship in peace time?
''But, that’s VERY different from what Hamas has done in since the invasion began, right?''
Was it as bad as U.S.S. Liberty?
''Intentionally targeting a music festival and intentionally killing 300 unarmed civilians.
Intentionally grenading a bomb shelter full of unarmed civilians.
Intentionally dropping a bomb on a clearly marked ambulance and then releasing the footage from that drone to show others you’re breaking Geneva conventions.
The plans have been found. They VERY intentionally targeted civilians and their goal was to take as much life as possible.''
Hadn't U.S. done the same during WW2 on strategic bombing?
''Their militia hides among the population. So much so that when Israel told Palestinian civilians to clear out of a space Hamas told those civilians to stay put … guaranteeing the death of Palestinian civilians when Israel came for Hamas.''
Vietcong did the same; U.S. still recognizes Ho's flunkies as the legitimate government.
''How about the explosion outside the Palestinian hospital and how Hamas said that was Israel. And then video footage came out CLEARLY showing that it was a rocket from a barrage sent by Hamas that hit their own hospital and they lied about it coming from Israel.''
That is in dispute by other sources; you're relying on WSJ, a notorious NeoCon flunkie shill/front.
You can google, A Close Look at Some Key Evidence in the Gaza Hospital Blast
''I could provide more examples … it feels pointless to continue.''
Didn't Israel lie about U.S.S. Liberty, and/or keep changing its stories?
''Both sides are not equally at fault here.''
Why do you think so? Hadn't the Zionist committed terrorism against the Palestinians before the state of Israel?
jabaliya refugee camp bombing, was it ok?
''Hamas is being exterminated because they asked for it.''
Are you saying, just because a nation commits terrorism, it deserves to be exterminated?
Hadn't U.S. committed terrorism, and/or sponsored terrorist movement?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@GUNNER67akaKelt ''Well, most countries could give land back to the original owners, for that matter.''
Indeed.
''Somewhere at some point in time, the people living there now killed the people who were there first.''
Yes, for example, in Korea, today's Koreans are not the full blooded descendants of the natives in the Korean Peninsula.
Basically, the invaders (in fact, two different group of invaders, one Turkic, the other Scythians), invaded the Korean Peninsula, thousands of years ago. The Turkic invaders invaded the western portion, the Scythians, the east.
The Scythians drove out the ruling class of the east, to Japan. Then they became the new ruling class of the east. The former ruling class either killed, enslaved, or driven out, now conquered a portion of Japan, and became the new ruling class of the natives there, after killing the original ruling class of the natives.
''Sad fact of history.''
c'est la vie
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
02:11 Wow!!
03:30 What about IDF tanks during Yom Kippur War in 1973?
04:16 Great point, ignored by tacticool folks, gamer wannabee warlords, Stalin would approve.
05:18 Capitalism works, competition is more important than mere economy of scale.
09:17 When it comes to fighting against near peers, in a total war, chances are it's going to be based on universal conscription. In a total war, in real time, they're not going to be well-trained. Neither U.S. nor the Soviets had well-trained tank crew overall, certainly not as good as the Germans. Just take a look at Kasserine pass, U.S. tank crews, both the conscripts, and the veteran officers performed abysmally compared to the battle hardened, ultra well trained Germans.
However, as the war progresses, two things are bound to happen: once the greenhorns, if they survive long enough will become seasoned veterans, and the initially well-trained crew will become disabled/killed and their numbers will dwindle to nothing.
The Takeaway, eventually sooner or later, the conscripts will be either winning or losing the war, not the initially well-trained pros or semi-pros. The same process happened to once very well regarded IJA Kwantung Army, once a battle hardened, ultra well trained, if generally based on light infantry doctrine were regarded with fear and respect by the Soviets, even after Khalkin Gol, till early 40s, but by 1945, through attrition, Kwantung Army started relying on 3rd tier troop, not even 2nd tier, and diluted training by more than 50 to 70%, had had generally poor quality troops. Btw. the same had happened to USMC. The pinnacle of the USMC quality at the rank and file in the field happened in 20s, during the height of 'Banana Wars', on the other hand, by the end of WW2, the quality had hit rock bottom in the entire USMC history! They lowered both physical and mental standard by a considerable margin, cut the training by about 70% eventually.
So there the troop quality is not that important in winning a total war against near peer, but the numbers are. The thing to keep in mind is the total effective projective force, and as far as the rank and file troops are concerned are combination of troop quality, and quantity.
As far as the 'morale' is concerned, again, it's not that important, not as important as many people want to believe.
Just look at how G.I. behaved after the liberation of Paris.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_liberation_of_France
https://onlybooks.org/american-crimes-and-the-liberation-of-paris-robbery-rape-and-murder-by-renegade-gis-1944-1947
So much for the morale.
Both U.S. and the Soviets won WW2 based on less dumb grand strategy, far superior logistics, and competent, if not superior operational strategy, not based on tactical proficiency of the rank and file.
Military's priority should be winning against near peer, not asymmetric warfare. The priority doctrine should be always winning against near peer, using conscript army, not winning a quick, easy, cheap, asymmetric warfare against a weak opponent.
Winning against a weak opponent brings false confidence, when pitted against near peers. The wars that will really count will be always based on conscription army, barring the nuclear war.
What about T-80, and T-14? How have they performed? Me thinks the Russians would rush in T-14 to test their APS in real combat.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@andriandrason1318 ''Contemporary Russian-occupied territories include Transnistria (taken from Moldova); Abkhazia and South Ossetia (taken from Georgia);''
So far so good, yes, I had been aware, but .........
''.. and some part of the territory of Ukraine.''
Can you elucidate these 'some'?
''Additionally, the four southernmost Kuril Islands are considered by Japan''
Yes, that's what Japan considers; that's rich. Japan is the only Axis nation that got to keep what she had taken from others, like Okinawa, and Hokkaido, and no local autonomy, still treating the Okinawans, and Ainus as 2nd class citizens in their own homeland, with full support of U.S.!
''..and several other countries to be occupied by Russia.''
Which several countries?
Btw. You forgot to include Urals, Siberia, and the Russian Far East; they all had been taken by force by the Russians from the native peoples. They don't count?
What about Hawaii, and the part of CONUS taken by U.S. from the natives?
What about Taiwan itself? It didn't belong to ROC/KMT. It belonged to the natives after WW2. ROC/KMT took it by force after WW2 with full support of U.S.
What about Jeju island? Koreans had taken it by force, and later treated them like 2nd class citizens, treating them worse than the Japanese had.
This had led to Jeju uprising.
You can google Jeju uprising.
Btw. The English source is not even complete. U.S. involvement goes far further than what's in wiki; they demanded ROK forces to act more 'decisively'.
As a result, the first ROK commander (an ex-IJA officer no less) had been relieved and more fanatical officer was put in charge.
As for U.S. complicity,
You can google, White Shirts Society, and Korean National Youth Association.
Kinda similar to Ukraine today, huh?
February 28 incident, in Taiwan as well. Btw. U.S. doesn't support the independence of Taiwan. It's got nothing to do with the desires of the Taiwanese native peoples or even PRC.
It has everything to do with the desires of Chinese Han.
One of ROC/KMT's main goals is the 'mainland recovery', and that includes all the land currently occupied by PRC: Tibet, Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang, and Manchuria, that had not belonged to Chinese Han. Do you think U.S. would oppose?
2
-
@OpaqueNihilist '' literally more places than it isn't throughout the 190 so countries in the world. We are still more or less legally occupying Germany, Japan and South Korea.''
Strictly speaking, U.S. forces are in those three at their request. However, ROK is becoming neutral on this issue. ROK will be strong enough by 2050 to take on both DPRK and PRC in a total war, a pre-emptive, offensive setting no less alone.
So now there are serious internal debates within ROK; both agree U.S. would be an asset if PRC and/or DPRK attack ROK in a defensive war.
However, in an offensive war against PRC and/or DPRK, increasingly they believe U.S. would be a hinderance. ROK's eventual ambition is to recover NK and Manchuria, and help MPR recover inner Mongolia from China, any China, not just PRC, and that includes ROC/Taiwan.
So the prevailing view now is, ''If U.S. wants to stay, stay. If U.S. doesn't want to stay, leave. But we are not begging U.S. to stay if she doesn't want to.''
''We have over 400 military bases all over the world including places like Djibouti, Tunisia, Cuba, and Greece. No official at the Pentagon would ever deny that we're an imperial power... any country that has ever been a preeminent military power in any point in world history is Imperial by definition.''
Ditto, and by itself, nothing wrong with that, but it has outlived its usefulness after the Cold War. It no longer serves U.S. interest in the long run, and neither does for anyone else, including EU as well. It's one thing for the NeoCons and to a lesser extent MIC supports it for their own parochial reasons, it's another for the U.S. patriots, and EU patriots to become useful idiots for their self-destructive agenda.
''Unless you really honestly think we've let the Israelis use our aircraft and bombs to destroy around 30% of the entirety of all buildings in Gaza is somehow altruistic... why did we fight the Spanish American war if we're not imperialist? Why isn't Puerto Rico a state? What happened in Liberia?''
U.S. should have annexed Cuba after the war; it would have been gainer for U.S. Cuba, and the rest of the world as well, other than the Soviets. Not Philippine, though.
''Why are we the world's currency (that dynamic at least is progressively changing with BRICS)''
There is nothing wrong with USD being the world's only reserve currency by itself, provided U.S. is strong enough; U.S. is no longer strong enough to warrant that.
''what could be the possible explanation for the Petrodollar other than Imperialism? What happened in Lybia or our attempted overthrow of Syria?''
Waste of resources, that could have been used for far more productive investment for U.S.
''What happened in Vietnam?''
Another money pit for U.S. U.S. could have gained Ho as an ally against PRC! Talk about shooting oneself in the foot. F the 'Domino' theory.
''Nearly every breath we take has been as an imperialist power, make no mistake. I can give you quotes from nearly every president in our history acknowledging it, for both better and worse. We've always meddled in other nations affairs''
There's nothing wrong with being an imperialist power so long as one is strong enough, and it's one's interest to do so. But the problem for U.S. today is that U.S. is no longer strong enough, and it's not in U.S. interest to do so. Unfortunately, there are too many, phonie patriots, and phonie Christians demanding this PR stunt so that they can feel good about themselves like some junkie.
2
-
2
-
Can you tell me why USN hasn't adopted RN QE Twin Tower configuration for the Ford class?
French navy has adopted RN QE TT configuration as well, and so will ROKN for her first aircraft carrier.
I don't think aircraft carriers are obsolete so long as you have a good chance of obtaining air superiority.
ROKN is planning to build up to 8 aircraft carriers by 2050, divided into 4 aircraft carrier groups (not the biggest, but still bigger than RN QE, and technologically most advanced, combining RN TT configuration, and FN K22 reactor, with ROK's own modular mini-nuclear reactors, for better redundancy, and safer disposal of nuclear fuels, and easier refuel/repair as well). ROKN will be using low grade civilian uranium, not to run afoul of any nuclear treaties, why ROK has chosen K22 reactor design from FN.
Btw. I found out more about the advantage of AESA radar on KF-21 over AESA radar on F-35.
For starters, AESA on KF-21 is more reliable under hard use than AESA radar on F-35: It is more vibration resistant, and high heat stable.
But the real game changer is in the radar performance: AESA radar on KF-21 can focus on an image on the screen and magnify it by 20 fold, to discern whether the image represents a bird, or a stealth plane.
This feature can be preprogrammed to auto focus on any image on the screen. Also, AESA radar on KF-21 is far more modular than AESA on F-35. It is designed to work 70% capacity even when some of the components are broken; AESA radar on F-35 is 100% off when one or more parts fail.
ROK has the radar tested by IDF, and IDF was impressed enough to offer co-production deal, but ROK has chosen Leonardo of Italy, for marketing purposes. ROK doesn't want to piss off MBS, when he's expected to order 300 to 500 KF-21s soon, and Leonardo also has more sales leads in ME, and Africa than IDF.
The idea is that while still expensive, ROK AESA radar is a lot more affordable to the budgets of the 3rd world countries in ME, and Africa, most of which cannot even afford 3rd gen fighter jets, and ROK AESA radar will make these countries far less vulnerable to SEAD by 5th gen fighter jets, when used either for AD, or for their AFs. ROK will make a lot of money, and build a lot of support at UN, and hopefully, after getting used to ROK AESA radars, many of them will choose KF-21 for their AFs later on.
Btw. FN wants to build an operational agreement with ROKN, and UK RAF wants to build a pilot training program with ROK AF, together. I think UK has given up on 'Tempest', after ditching Japan as a partner. The word I hear is that both RAF and RN recommend UK to buy 60 KF-21s, only needing approval from PM, who has political consideration besides the military consideration.
I think U.S. needs to fix the 3 deficiencies of F-35 before moving on to NGAD: Don't put the cart before the horse.
Unless, those 3 deficiencies are solved first, U.S. will be just wasting money and time, and get even further behind. Wouldn't it be great if U.S. spent money on fixing these 3 instead of Ukraine? A lot of good paying jobs for the Americans.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@thomasb5600 ''Countries are working on these already. An Australian company produces hand held Anti-Drone weapon that use no ammo, let’s see how that progress when attached to vehicles. The U.S. has Anti-Drone laser for vehicles(Land & Sea), then individual large or swarm of drones is not going to be as useful as appearance in Ukraine might seem.''
Drones are not the future, too much bandwidth hog, and vulnerable to easy jamming.
''Due to Russias recent action they are not going to be the country where new weapon tech will be coming from NATO, Israel, Singapore, Australia or China, however South Korea, Taiwan, Japan or India we might see something new too.''
ROK has already finished the test flight for UCAVs at the squadron level, with no human observers.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@DubhghlasMacDubhghlas ''It is all good, I just think it is funny idea of using ICBM's that are designed to carry nukes to take out aircraft carriers.''
Gamer dude/millennial
''And for that large of ICBM to be hypersonic also... would require it to grow in size to be able to store all the fuel it would need to go hypersonic.''
Actually, technically all ICBMs are hypersonic. However, when people use the term, 'hypersonic', they really mean hypersonic cruise missiles.
Do you think someday, sensor technology can develop to the point of locating the silo-based ICBMs in CONUS, from satelliters, and attacking them with hypersonic, stealth cruise missiles to disable, and to detonate the nuclear warheads?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@DubhghlasMacDubhghlas ''With the US made patriot battery of ADA, hypersonic missile is just a faster than average missile, ...''
Zircon max speed Mach 9
Patriot max speed Mach 4.1
It's a little faster than average missile, in fact, twice the speed of Patriot.
''If it can be tracked with a radar it can be shot down.''
What if it is equipped with multi band spectrum stealth coating?
''Speed doesn't mean that it can't be tracked or shot down.''
No, it depends on the distance to the hypersonic missile, the closer the hypersonic missile, the harder to track and intercept.
Not only that it also depends on how maneuverable the hypersonic missile is, both in speed, and vector. The weakness of most hypersonic missiles today, including Zircon is that the speed is not variable, but constant once it reaches the hypersonic stage, still very fast.
''The high speed of the Zircon likely gives it better target-penetration characteristics than lighter subsonic cruise-missiles, such as Tomahawk. Being twice as heavy and almost eleven times as fast as Tomahawk, the Zircon has more than 242 times the on-cruise kinetic energy of a Tomahawk missile (≈9 gigajoules, or equal to 2,150 kg TNT explosive energy). Its claimed Mach 9 speed would mean that it cannot be intercepted by existing missile defence systems, and its precision would make it lethal to large targets such as aircraft carriers.[53][54]''
Also, there is another weakness to not only Zircon, but all hypersonic cruise missiles, the inability to use radar, IR seeker or anti-radar jamming technology against the enemy radar guided missiles, due to its extreme speed, once the hypersonic speed is reached.
''Zircon can travel at a speed of Mach 8 (6,100 mph; 9,800 km/h; 2.7 km/s). This has led to concerns[neutrality is disputed] that it could penetrate existing naval defense systems.[55] Because it flies at hypersonic speeds within the atmosphere, air pressure in front of it forms a plasma cloud as it moves, absorbing radio waves and making it practically invisible to active radar systems (plasma stealth).[56] However, this also blinds any radar or IR seeker on the missile. With plasma stealth, hypersonic-speed and sea skimming technique, intercepting a flying Zircon is extremely difficult, if at all feasible at the current level of technology. The final section of the trajectory is completed in minimal time (under 10 seconds), so the enemy will likely not have time to carry out all the necessary procedures to intercept it.[57] Zircon exchanges information in flight and can be controlled by commands if necessary.[58]''
But ROK has developed its own hypersonic cruise missile, hycore. Its unique advantage over Zircon is that ROK has perfected reliable way of turning on/off on the ramjet/scramjet hybrid engine on demand, in real time, once the engine has been ignited, during mid flight.
It therefore, could vary its speed, making the interception that much more difficult than even Zircon, more maneuverable, and with the ability to 'glide' between on, and off phase, and extending the range as much as 400% of Zircon, and the ability to use radar and its sonar based anti-radar jamming technology during sub hypersonic phase, for accurate tracking of the target, and rendering the enemy radar useless, and once close enough, going for hypersonic speed to the target.
It will also be equipped with multi-band spectrum stealth coating, against both radar, and infrared, making the missile not only stealth, but also radar-lock 'proof'/resistant, even if the enemy radar somehow detects it, they won't be able to 'lock' it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
0043 Yes, F-35 was intended to replace them: That was their main selling point.
0045 No, They are going to be replaced and retired, as they should be.
0057 The US Air Force Quietly Admits the F-35 Is a Failure - ExtremeTech
0120 The pilot forgot the numbers: The numbers could be more important than just talent, a pilot in the box. In the battle of Nomonhan, IJA had better pilots and better planes as well than the Soviets, but the Soviets had the numbers, and did the ground and pound: IJA overall had higher kill ratios, but they couldn’t get relief. Some IJA pilots ended up fighting 24 hours straight! IJA eventually had to withdraw the AF, and the ground units ended up getting stranded, and surrounded.
0220 F-35 is very unreliable, almost PRC unreliable. This puts the sortie rate at far below suboptimal.
This may not matter that much to an individual pilot, but it matters a great deal at the operational level. After all, one doesn’t go to war so that an ace could win some dogfights.
Besides 6 gen is going to be replacing 5th gen pretty soon.
0307 Russian almost always never export full spec advanced weapon systems, that’s for domestic use only. About the only exception was when they sold a batch of T-80U back in 90s when they were in extreme hardship.
One cannot depend on F-35’s stealth ability based on examination of S-300 the Russians exported.
Btw. U.S. does the same: U.S. rarely ever exports full spec advanced weapons. F-35 U.S. has sold to the allies are all downgraded ones.
0347 20k is only for the kit, not the ammunition/bomb itself, plus the support service module: using JDAM for F-35 is like having a pig wear a diamond necklace. JDAM is far inferior to KEPD 150, far longer range, far more precise. ROK originally thought about JDAM as well for supposed commonality of parts, and far cheaper price, but found JDAM to be very finicky, unreliable, plus far inferior performance.
Why risk an ultra expensive fighter like F-35 when one could use KEPD 150 for better performance, far more safely? Penny wise dollar foolish move.
KEPD 150 (globalsecurity.org)
0404 F-35 Flaws | Why the F-35 Still Has a Lot of Must-Fix Flaws (popularmechanics.com)
0428 Here Is What We Know About Yesterday’s British F-35B Crash - The Aviationist
Accident Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II 12-5053, 19 May 2020 (aviation-safety.net)
0457 So-called ‘Stealth’ ability is over-rated, and it has far smaller radar signature, but it can be detected when close enough to the enemy radar and/or if the enemy radar is good enough, and radar is getting better almost every few months, but stealth is not getting better every few months.
Not only that, the stealth panel used by F-35 is not durable: It will ‘chip off’ when flown beyond mach, in fact, SOP is to repair those stealth panels after every sortie, and the operating cost of F-35 is indeed ‘Ferrari’ like like CharLes Brown had said. It also keep the sortie rate suboptimal.
0506 That mission set is already obsolete. Why risk a super expensive fighter jet, with a very expensive pilot? Why not simply use autonomous unmanned fighter/attack bomber to do the dangerous work, such as SEAD, using stealth guided/smart bomb?
0618 You don’t ask pilots to build the planes needed for the war: They will give a plane they want to fly, win some dogfights, not the plane needed to win the war.
The most important factor is cost effectiveness, not situational awareness. What good is situational awareness if the plane is not cost effective.
0642 F-22 has far smaller radar signature than F-35.
0822 The tactics are changing. Boeing Airpower Teaming System
Unmanned Aircraft Systems - Manned-Unmanned Teaming (armyaviationmagazine.com)
0840 That VTOL comes with stiff cost. Less performance, less reliability, far higher expense/operating cost. Is it really cost effective? Me think not. USMC can depend on USAF, and USN, doesn’t need to waste resources on less effective, less efficient redundant support.
0915 All three are going to be replaced something better and more cost-effecitve.
0937 F-35 was never tested against first rate SEAD in Iraq. Not only that U.S. didn’t need F-35 for SEAD in Iraq. Using F-35 against ill-trained pseudo religious kooks is no proof of its cost effectiveness.
I am not sure whether F-35 should have been started even now. However, I am convinced even if F-35 should have been started, its implementation was suboptimal, and F-35B should have never been allowed, A, and C only. B is the most expensive of the three, and the least effective as well.
USMC can depend on USAF, and USN, and she still would have Apaches for CAS, and if that’s not enough, she could have gone for Super Tucanos for more inland operation. For CAS, super tucanos are far more efficient and just as effective overall as Apaches. No reason to waste money on B.
The corner stone for the future implementation should be based on MUM-T, not expensive individual pilots for the future. MUM-T should be implemented across all services.
2
-
2
-
2
-
16:40 I need to point out on this one. Yes, acceleration is slightly worse, but it actually has better durability and reliability than the German powerpak, as proven during Omani tank trial, which K2 won against both Leopard 2, and Turkish Altay, in hard, sandy, field trial. Both Altay, and Leopard 2 failed. Leopard 2 got stuck, Altay powerpak stopped running altogether.
ROK is interested in field performance, not race track performance in ideal condition.
Btw. In the ROK tank trial first one, ROK made powerpak failed the durability test, whereas the German powerpak passed, but in close examination, ROK made powerpak failed due to the German component nearby, probably not compatible with ROK powerpak.
When they substituted ROK made components, ROK powerpak turned out to have superior reliability, and durability over the German powerpak, which was vindicated in Omani tank trial.
So far, the word I here is K2 is outperforming Leopard 2 in Norway tank trials.
Another reason why ROK is successful in selling weapons is the willingness to share technology with the customers who buy enough volume, plus the best customer service in the world.
This helps customers save money in volume purchase, and ROK to sell more weapons than she can manufacture at home.
Word I hear is that both Saudis and UAE are going to buy KF-21 instead of F-35s, and both Turkiye and Poland are interested in KF-21 as well, and even UK expressed interested in KF-21.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Xenomorphine ''If stealth platform already destroyed all hostile air and anti-air assets, as well as sensor nodes, then what would be the reason for F-15 to worry about speed, range, and agility at the expense of full payload?'' - Hyok Kim
''Because those are things certain commentators are raving about as supposed advantages...'' - Xenomorephine
Does that include you?
''- and RANGE most definitely factors into capability of any mission.''
...but here, I am talking about a situation where and when all hostile air and anti-air assets as well as sensor nodes were destroyed already. Can F-15 not carry drop tanks or refuel in the air?
This also means F-15 wouldn't have to perform any evasive maneuver, which takes a big toll in fuel consumption and the range, even less reason to worry about range, just A to B.
''It's not going to be trailing behind F-22s and F-35s, because that would alert the enemy to where those platforms are. It would also very clearly slow them down.''
...but here I am talking about situation where and when all hostile air and anti-air assets, as well as sensor nodes are already destroyed. So no need to worry about the hostile AD or air assets.
Of course, by that point, no reason for F-15 to trail behind F-22/35, since all hostile air and AD assets are neutralized, only soft/interdiction targets. No reason to slow F-22/35s down.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Janoip ''AGM Iveco 8 x 8''
Still wheeled, not tracked, a no go during winter, and mud season
''Donar tracked System''
Sounds good in peace time, but the greatest weakness is the forward driver compartment, this is actually the reverse idea of the Soviet object 490b from 80s/90s? COG too high, most likely to roll over when going up/down steep slope. All wheeled platforms have higher COG than tracked.
I prefer the Soviet object 490b idea.
Not only that upcoming autonomous SPG will make Donar system obsolete.
''you dont need that much armor they focus more on mobility and active protection like ADS if wanted''
ADS are not much help for SPGs that are most likely to be facing artillery shrapnels, and maybe small arms fire, not direct hits from heavy duty artillery, or even cannons.
Anyway, thanks for the detail explanation.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Human history. All those people defending Ukraine against Russia, totally silent on the natives of Siberia, and the Russian Far East; how they had been robbed, treated as 2nd class citizen on their native lands.
What about Okinawa? What about Hokkaido? What about Jeju island?
.c'est la vie. What can you do?
Btw. U.S. was right to rob the natives and take their lands; they were going to lose them anyway to some other powers hostile to U.S. U.S. could have faced existential threat, not from the natives, but from those hostile powers.
If one is not strong enough to defend what one claims, one does not have the right to have it.
If one cannot use the resources of the land one claims, but others can use those resources far more effectively and/or efficiently, then those who can, taking them could bring more prosperity to the human race.
However, there is a hope for the Ugyers. I don't think PRC will exist by 2050. Big change will be coming. Whatever that is, Ugyers, and other minorities within PRC will have very little to lose, but to gain.
PRC's GDP is largely made up from ghost cities, and associated activities. Genuine superpowers do not build the foundation of their prosperity based on real estate speculation.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Mr_Wheels99 ''However, often the terrain of the Western Front could partially negate it with the terrain generally being more hilly.''
Indeed, still given enough time, the German tank crew had already enough understanding of the local terrain to account for that. That's why even after D-day, with the exception of 'Rampage', Americans had a very tough going, but during 'Rampage', when the Germans had not had enough time since the Shermans were breaking through in massive numbers, they were on the run.
''While Wittman has a very impressive record, there is a difference in the tank he operated and a sherman. For one, the Sherman was made for infantry support, which it very much excelled at. The fact that it's gun was also good at taking out most of the tanks fielded by the Germans while it's frontal armor was good at defending from their guns was great.''
Good against Panzer III and IVs but Tiger, and Panthers?
Btw. Rommel's 'favorite tanks' were neither Panthers or Tigers, but III and IVs! Rommel liked his tanks moving fast and furious, the breakthrough. Rommel was not a tank fetishist, but a hard practical user.
III and IVs were known for their durability/reliability in tough conditions, unlike Panthers and Tigers which could be 'temperamental'.
''But it is not a Tiger. A tiger is a breakthrough tank for taking out enemy tanks and hardened positions, so there is an obvious difference in firepower, armor, and doctrine.''
Here, I don't want to sound pedantic. I used to believe myself Tiger was a breakthrough tank myself, and it is still a very popular conception, but when I had read some more 'specialist' literature on Tigers, technically, it was not a breakthrough tank, but actually its opposite, it was an anti-breakthrough tank. Basically, Tiger was a 'fire brigade' tank to prevent the enemy breakthrough, by defending the gap, with its thick armors, and long range, powerful guns/optics, behind the front line, but situated at/near the likely enemy breakthrough spots.
''This is why American Tank Destroyer crews are the only ones comparable in tank kill counts to Wittman- their vehicle was made and was used for taking out tanks.''
I think TDs were some of the most under-rated military formation in WW2. Even the venerable Moran doesn't have much respect: He claims they worked for the time, but stated it was an interesting failure!
His reasoning was if they were really successful in WW2, then why hadn't nations keep using them?
This is a flawed logic. By that kind of reasoning, turbo prop engines for most of the planes in WW2 were also interesting failures, since most nations after WW2 eventually gave up on TDs?
Btw. ROC/Taiwan kept using TDs, and might still have TDs in reserve. I think TDs in the roles it's designed, that is 'fire brigade' to move fast, in enough numbers, to take out the enemy tanks at both long, and short range ( in an ambush scenario) to prevent the breakthrough, still has a role to play, even today.
''I think you might have misunderstood what I said about German tanks being shit. I agree with you, the German doctrine and how they tactically used them was superior! What I was talking about was their doctrine specifically for designing them. Quality over quantity can work, but if you don't have the ability to mass produce then your quality shouldn't be overly complex.''
I agree. Personally, I think the Germans should have standardized their panzers on Hetzers, from the get go, as early as mid 30s! And streamlined the production line 24/7, they would have had enough panzers to take Moscow early (despite all the operational/strategic mistakes they had made), and win the war by a knock out.
You can read an outstanding book by Stolfi, on this.
'Hitlers' Panzers East', he had written a few great books on the German use of panzers.
I'm almost done with '7th Panzer division' as well, another outstanding work by Stolfi. He's not like most military historians, or whom I think are mostly shills, not true intellectuals. He's very objective, through, but still as concise as possible, no 'fillers'.
''I also didn't understand what you were saying about it also, so sorry about that. Happy to see you are a Sherman fan! Definitely my favorite tank of the war!''
Oh, yeah. As far as tanks designed to win wars, not just battles, Sherman was the king. But the German industry no matter what kind of tanks produced was not in a position to win a war of attrition with the Allies.
Which was why I think the Germans should have standardized on Hetzers, technically a TD, not a tank.
In fact, I will go even further. the Germans should have standardized on open topped version of modular Hetzers, the closed topped version being used for winter, and rainy season, but everything else the same, so the economy of scale could still be maintained.
In fact, the Germans should have produced an 'universal' chassis/hull to take an advantage of economy of scale to full effect.
1. An open topped modular chassis/hull, with the closed top being produced/used for winter/rainy season for TD/Assault artillery roles.
2. An open topped modular chassis/hull, being utilized for assault mortars, with the standard infantry mortars, and potential breech loading direct fire mortars developed asap. I know French eventually came up with that concept, but the Germans did have the technology to build direct fire breech loading mortars even back in 30s.
Open topped version would have saved the money/time/weight as well as giving better bail out time, ventilation, situational awareness, better ground travelability, especially through mud, and lower CGs, which would come in real handy, in rugged, uneven terrains, both speed, and freedom of movement, easier/faster repair/maintenance.
3. An open topped version, but unarmed being used as ammunition/fuel carriers/field hospitals/troop carriers/mobile command post/artillery tower. (in good weather).
4. Horizontally opposed gas engines used in general, for even lower CGs, and extra protection from mines, but front mounted V6 diesel engine used for top covered version for winter, for better protection/warmth for the crew, but also to accommodate extra long range gun placed behind the back, for even weight distribution.
... and ax all other tanks, SPGs! This would have given the Germans the economy of scale early to make the difference, and this was on the Wehrmacht, not Hitler. They screwed up.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mat05usz Very simple, Russia will offer oil and gas at discount to the rest of the world.
EU/NATO countries will try to get oil from OPEC, Venezuela, and U.S. of course, and that's one big reason why U.S. is supporting the war in Ukraine, to displace Russian oil/gas from EU/NATO.
The problem is EU/NATO will have to pay premium to get the non-Russian oil/gas, and this will hurt their economy, reducing their standard of living, and economic competitiveness vs. the rest of the world.
As time goes by, this will have exponential effect of hurting EU/NATO, and some the lesser countries in EU/NATO will start defecting, buying Russian oil/gas. EU/NATO will either have to discipline these countries, or end up losing credibility.
If they try to discipline, most likely through additional sanctions against them, it will only drive them into Putin, and that's what he wants.
If they expel them from NATO/EU, they weaken NATO/EU, and it will drive them into Putin anyway.
This is a no win situation for EU/NATO.
That's basically how Napoleonic empire ended up unraveling, through 'Continental Blockade' to weaken Britain, and it did hurt Britain initially.
So what did Britain do? Why expand trade outside Europe!
... and trade with Europe through black market!
Most notable violators of this sanction were Portugal, and Russia. So Napoleon decide to punish them: that's how he got involved in 'Spanish Ulcer' and failed invasion of Russia, and weakening of his coalition, and the strengthening of his enemy coalition, resulting in Waterloo, eventually.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_System
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-ruble-currency-2022/
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/russia-says-rubles-pay-dollar-130007516.html
https://www.newsweek.com/sanctions-destroying-us-dollar-status-top-currency-1580619
2
-
2
-
@zbiku82 Very simple, Russia will offer oil and gas at discount to the rest of the world.
EU/NATO countries will try to get oil from OPEC, Venezuela, and U.S. of course, and that's one big reason why U.S. is supporting the war in Ukraine, to displace Russian oil/gas from EU/NATO.
The problem is EU/NATO will have to pay premium to get the non-Russian oil/gas, and this will hurt their economy, reducing their standard of living, and economic competitiveness vs. the rest of the world.
As time goes by, this will have exponential effect of hurting EU/NATO, and some the lesser countries in EU/NATO will start defecting, buying Russian oil/gas. EU/NATO will either have to discipline these countries, or end up losing credibility.
If they try to discipline, most likely through additional sanctions against them, it will only drive them into Putin, and that's what he wants.
If they expel them from NATO/EU, they weaken NATO/EU, and it will drive them into Putin anyway.
This is a no win situation for EU/NATO.
That's basically how Napoleonic empire ended up unraveling, through 'Continental Blockade' to weaken Britain, and it did hurt Britain initially.
So what did Britain do? Why expand trade outside Europe!
... and trade with Europe through black market!
Most notable violators of this sanction were Portugal, and Russia. So Napoleon decide to punish them: that's how he got involved in 'Spanish Ulcer' and failed invasion of Russia, and weakening of his coalition, and the strengthening of his enemy coalition, resulting in Waterloo, eventually.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_System
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-ruble-currency-2022/
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/russia-says-rubles-pay-dollar-130007516.html
https://www.newsweek.com/sanctions-destroying-us-dollar-status-top-currency-1580619
2
-
05:57 Oh, yes, bane of all militaries in the world.
19:14 Idle talk from those people. It will be good for OPEC, AND U.S. oil companies, at least temporarily, but very bad for the rest of the world. The whole world could go into depression and/or hyperinflationary collapse.
ROK, for one, imports about 20% energy needs from Russia. The other about 80% from Saudis.
Can U.S. replace those 20% for about the same price? I don't think so. ROK will be very unhappy, along with the rest of U.S. allies. I find this sanction thing to be really nothing more than a PR stunt, to pretend that the West 'cares' about something they really don't, (like building a democracy in Afghanistan, what a joke!) so long as it doesn't cost too much money.
But even in U.S. if they really were dumb enough, (and I don't think most Dems are that dumb, dumb, but not THAT dumb) to levy sanction on Russian oil/gas, they'll find out pretty soon the inflation will skyrocket, and the people who will suffer most will be the average folks, and that's when the sanction will end.
19:38 On this one, I believe you're describing more of a symptom rather than the real, deep, underlying cause.
I'll explain below. What had made the Japanese military decide to attack Pearl harbor was not the oil embargo. The Japanese military (strictly speaking, not all Japanese military, but the IJA faction behind Tojo, 'Toshei', and IJN, but not the IJA Kodoha faction, which strongly opposed the Pearl harbor, Kodoha had wanted to attack the Soviet Union instead) seized the oil embargo as an excuse to attack Pearl harbor, but it was not the reason itself.
You can take a look at one Kanji Ishiwara, the erstwhile Kodoha leader.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanji_Ishiwara#Return_to_Manchukuo_and_disgrace
The real underlying reason was the collusion of both inter-service rivalry between IJN and IJA, and intra-service rivalry within IJA between Toshei and Kodoha factions.
Kodoha faction was more about promoting the optimal Japanese national interest, whereas Toshei faction was more about enriching itself, and its flunkies while hiding behind the facade of promoting national interest, and IJN promoting its own parochial institutional interest at the expense of national interest.
Japan had a defense budget, which both IJA and IJN had to divide up: Not surprisingly they both wanted more at the other's expense.
For IJN to justify a huge investment in the navy, they had to USE that navy to justify the budget. It didn't matter to IJN whether using that navy was in the best interest of the nation: it was at least in the best interest of IJN, at least, in the short run. Either use it or lose it. So they decide to use it.
For Toshei faction, they were more interested in their individual career ladder, rather than the national best interest.
How do the generals/officers get promoted? By winning wars/battles! It doesn't matter that much whether those wars/battles are really necessary for the nation's best interest, so long as one wins, it makes good resume!
One has better chance of winning wars/battles by attacking weaker enemies than strong ones. China was a lot weaker than the Soviet Union, and that's how Toshei decided to go to war against China, instead of Soviet Union.
Now, Kodoha had wanted to go to war against the Soviet Union, and that would have meant building huge armored units. Problem is the defense budget, IJN wanted to build ships, not tanks. So naturally, IJN was opposed to going to war against the Soviet Union, instead wanted to go to war against U.S. and the West.
Now, IJN was pretty much indifferent to China, but China was a weak foe, so IJA would not have needed huge armored units, therefore Toshei faction was far more compatible with IJN than Kodoha faction.
Thus was born the alliance between IJN and Toshei faction against Kodoha faction, which got out-voted, and the decision was made to attack Pearl harbor and go to war against U.S. and the West.
This analysis was made based on Neo-Classical Realist doctrine.
2
-
2
-
I hear that they are also working on autonomous version of K2, along with K9 for MUM-T at the platoon level.
The ratio is expected to be 3:1, so only one of the tank/SPG platoon will be manned, the other 3 unmanned, but not drones, but autonomous. Initial trial version will be 1:3, so 3 manned, 1 unmanned, and the result is satisfactory, to be expanded into 1 manned, 3 unmanned.
They're also working on experimental version, where the entire platoon will be unmanned, autonomous, eventually to be expanded into the level of an entire army, 4 corps.
My speculation is that this is to be the tip of the spear; just imagine 4 armored corps, 100% unmanned.
4 armored corps moving, fighting 24/7 non-stop, achieving strategic breakthrough, and not giving the enemy the time, space to regroup. My guess is this is aimed at PRC. ROK needs Manchuria, and Inner Mongolia to establish communication lines with MPR, and the would be Cental Asian partners, leading to Turkiye, and Poland/V4.
So the logistical advantage would be huge, no food, water, rest/sleep, medicals, etc.
Poland is expected to collaborate with ROK regarding future MBT, K3, incorporating rail gun, and thermal camo, and the built in option of unmanned, autonomous version.
2
-
2
-
@andremontmartin7207 Well, ironically, they are very highly regarded in Africa.
Btw. The MBT ROK K2 was most heavily influenced by is LeClerc. ROK was at one time interested in Merkava, but found it to be too top heavy, and unstable in high speed, and sudden turns; ROK is mostly very hilly, steep, gravel country road, in off-road, icy and snowy in winter, muddy, slippery during monsoon season.
Two aspects of LeClerc ROK was heavily influenced was autoloaders, (essential for MUM-T), and fire control system for the armored units to minimize redundant targeting, akin to 'Platoon Firing System'. Redundant targeting minimization is of a questionable value in Korean peninsula, but in Manchuria, Inner Mongolia, Central Regions of China, would be most efficient.
French had come up with some really useful, innovative, unique systems, not really appreciated even among hardcore militaria fans, such as, Brandt Mle CM60A1, breech loading, traversable mortar.
The one French armored car that I am most impressed with is Panhard EBR, packed with so many useful, unique, and innovative features.
The use of H12 air cooled engine, placed under the floor was brilliant; it lowers COG, improving maneuverability, air is naturally cooled by shading from the sun, making the air cooled engine, both more reliable, and improving the performance, also serving as extra protection from the landmines for the crew.
This also allows the twin driver arrangement; armored cars cannot turn as efficiently as MBTs, by using twin drivers, front and rear allows the armored car to retreat a lot faster than otherwise, while still firing at the enemy.
Another is Rafaelle, even though it's only 4th gen, it can still be more than a match for F-35 depending on situation. On paper, F-35 looks superior, since it is less visible than Rafael at distance, but Rafale has Meteor, far longer range missile than AMRAAM carried by F-35.
Just like many amateurs had thought that T-34 was operationally superior to Panzer III and IV, due to superior armor, and longer range gun; forgetting Panzers had superior optics, allowing them to see T-34s before T-34s could see Panzers.
So yes, in theory, F-35s can see Rafaele before Rafael can see F-35, but Rafael can fire meteor at far longer distance than F-35 can fire AMRAAM; meaning even if F-35 sees Rafael first, they cannot necessarily take advantage of that. They to had to get to Rafael close enough before firing AMRAAM, but before F-35 can get that close, Rafael could see F-35, and launch Meteor before F-35 gets close enough to fire AMRAAM!
Why ROK KF-21 intends it to be compatible with Meteor. One big reason why UAE bought Rafael was its capability to use Meteor, unlike F-35s. Of course, U.S. temporarily was not willing to sell F-35 to UAE.
F-35 stealth capability is over-rated, when it comes to durability, robustness, and cost effectiveness. They are very expensive to maintain; why ROK has decided to go for hard stealth coating, instead of F-35's soft stealth coating.
Plus the MAT subguns from the colonials wars during the Cold war; many believe it is the most under-rated, and the most cost-effective SMG of the Cold War, not HKs.
Just like Manhurin revolvers, the most cost effective, accurate, robust, durable, reliable, revolver ever made, not Colt Python, not Korth. Again, very under-rated.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The Artillery General had a point. As for optimal strategy (not tactics, operational considerations), the Americans got it right for the optimal use of tanks, in massive numbers, for strategic offensive, for breakthrough, not kill ratios. Not to fight the enemy tanks, but to breakthrough the enemy gaps, and wreck havoc, a rampage against enemy infantry, and rear supply depots, communication lines. To use primarily tank destroyers to deal with enemy tanks.
For that purpose, the tanks should have optimal guns, armor, engine, and overall weight. It should have enough (not beyond optimal) gun, high explosive shells only to deal with enemy infantry, normal bunkers, normal artillery at normal range. No APs. Enough armor (to defeat the normal enemy artillery high explosive shells, not APs) at normal range. Enough engine to have enough speed/momentum to wreck havoc with minimal time in the rear before the enemy can react.
For tank destroyers, ones integrated with the tanks, would have an open turret (for maximum situational awareness, optimal ventilation, and faster bailout time), would have an AT gun, with AP shells only, but not overlong barrel. The armor would be minimal only against enemy small arms, HMGs only, not any artillery shells. The would enable TDs act fast and decisively against the enemy tanks, heavy bunkers. Would enable them to see the enemy tanks before they can see and deliver AP shells at longer range than the enemy tanks. Again, the Americans got it right with their hellcats.
As for tank destroyers integrated with the mechanized infantry, they would have no turret, but an open casemate, again for better situational awareness, even better ventilation, faster bailout time.
Since TDs with the MIs, are to be used in a fixed position for well defined approaches for the enemy tanks, they would have had little need for turrets, further reducing weight, and visibility for optimal ambush against enemy tanks. No turrets, and open casemate, means TDs could use longer barrel than the TDs with an open turret. Far longer range than even TDs with an open turret.
They could have used just chassis, not even casemate, for damaged armor retrieval, tow artillery, supply ammo/fuel for the armored units, recon/mine field clearing, and as assault mortar platform. Mortars to be used in massive numbers against concentration of the enemy armors (top of the turrets the weakest of the armor), the Italians sometimes used this technique brilliantly against the British armors. Also to strip off the enemy infantry from the enemy tanks to make the enemy tanks vulnerable to friendly infantry.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
14:50 Why hadn't the ODA put an observer or two while in the village, on the woods, when they already had known they would exit by the woods?
14:57 Why had the ODA stopped after receiving the fire from the woods from the rear? 1. Either it was an independent small unit of the enemy, that would not have been worth the risk of delayed departure, and getting fixed by the enemy, while bigger enemy reinforcements could have arrived.
2. If it was not an independent enemy small unit, but a part of bigger enemy plan to fix and destroy the ODA, then even bigger reason the ODA should not have stopped; there was no good reason, but to haul ass fast.
Not only that the enemy in the woods would have had the advantage of cover, and shade from the hot Sun; the ODA caught in the open, with soft skinned vehicles.
17:48 The ODA should not have stopped; you don't risk an entire unit being wiped out to save a small element; you could do the opposite; sacrifice a small rear guard to save the entire unit; you don't do it in reverse.
1
-
1
-
@jimmers123 Yes, data wise without context. However, in Savo, U.S. had not been properly briefed about the IJN task force approaching, and the command had been disorganized, caught napping.
In Tassofaringa, U.S. had been waiting for an ambush, with radars working this time, it was the Japanese who had been surprised in an ambush, yet, they rose to the occasion and prevailed. None other than U.S. naval operations chief was impressed that this was the finest example of the IJN leadership in the war.
1
-
1
-
@manilajohn0182 ‘’ Their losses at Savo Island were far greater however, and although they didn't know the Japanese were inbound, they were careless.’’
The reason why I think Tasso was worse than Savo is that at Tasso, there was no Allied Command with confusion regarding the chain of command. Also, like you had said, the decision makers at the top were not available when they were sorely needed. Also, an important field intel recon info regarding the IJN task force was not handed down to them. Also, the radar didn’t detect the IJN task force due to their very clever hugging the complex coast line, even though if some Seabees had been placed there as coast watchers, they could have detected the IJN task force.
At Tasso, there was no Allied Command with the confusion of chain of command, not only they had had an advance intel, but also this time the radar worked, and detected them. Plus USN actually had a very good plan, if orthodox, and conventional. U.S.N also had learned the lesson at Savo byt then.
Given the advantages USN had at Tasso relative to Savo, this should have been a cakewalk. I understand the reason for the defeat at Savo, Tasso is just beguiling.
Of course, U.S.N. had made very elementary, but very critical tactical mistakes at night fighting. But this should have been foreseen, especially after Savo.
‘’ Hyok Kim Well, I agree with you in part. Tassafaronga should not have happened. On the other hand, Savo Island was inexcusable. Eight months after Pearl Harbor, the Americans (and Australians) were caught asleep at the switch- but now in wartime.’’
Ok, so I get your reasoning. So you must think MacArthur was the worst U.S. general, no/
‘’Furthermore, the cost in both men and ships was far more severe. Tassafaronga was just another naval defeat; had it not been for Mikawa's (understandable) caution however, Savo Island could have resulted in a disastrous early end to the United States' first counteroffensive.’’
You surely don’t think it would have changed the strategic outcome, do you/
It wouldn’t have mattered if it had put an end to the U.S. counter offensive then. It would have merely delayed the inevitable by at most a year.
Btw. If MacArthur had not screwed up at Clark, he would not have departed Philliphines, and instead of Midway, the decisive battle would have been fought at Philiphine far sooner, , that means no Savo, or Tasso, that much quicker route to the victory.
In fact, even if IJN had won Midway, in fact, even if IJN/IJA had conquered Hawaii, and raided San Diego, the canal, it would not have changed the strategic outcome. U.S.N. would have poured through both South America, and the Indian ocean, and IJN/IJA would have faced two front war, against U.S.S.R. and U.S.A. It would have delayed the inevitable, by at most 2 to 3 years.
Japan was doomed when she decided to attack the West, instead of the Soviet Union.
1
-
@manilajohn0182 ‘’ Good post. If I understand it correctly, 'the' critical mistake at Tassafaronga was made by Rear Admiral Wright, who delayed issuing the order to open fire for something on the order of 4-5 minutes, which resulted in a poor torpedo attack angle on the Japanese.’’
To my understanding, I don’t consider it as a mistake. People tend to judge it based on Monday Morning Quarterbacking, based on the information not available at the time the decision was made. Wright could have easily wanted to make sure they didn’t fire too prematurely.
Here’s one example of too premature firing sealing the fate of a battle.
Qing Manchu Cavarly vs Joseon Korean line of Musketeers - YouTube
This really had happened during Qing invasion of Joeseon.
The mistake was too much redundant targeting of a single target without knowing the true strength and the disposition of the enemy in real time. Too much fire was concentrated on the lead destroyer. That had left the rest of IJN squadron an opportunity into counterattacking the U.S.N. cruisers unscathed.
Another reason for additional casualties, 2 extra USN cruisers were the suboptimal formation during the IJN counter attack. 1 USN cruiser veered toward the IJN destroyers while passing the already hit and burning cruisers, making it into a brightly illuminated target, and the other didn’t try to increase the speed or maneuver to avoid the incoming torpedoes, again making an easy target. 2 extra cruisers hit as a result. This could have been easily avoided with pre battle drill/plan, no brainer for night fighting.
‘’MacArthur was not the worst U.S. general in WW2 (Fredendall)- MacArthur was merely one of the worst. By far his greatest error was his persuading the War Department that if he was massively reinforced with aircraft and material, he could take men from a land with no organized military tradition, and turn them into a force capable of repelling the Japanese- in under a year.’’
‘’ On the other hand, Savo Island was inexcusable. Eight months after Pearl Harbor, the Americans (and Australians) were caught asleep at the switch- but now in wartime.’’
You said Savo was inexcusable due to it happening 8 months after Pearl Harbor, and the Allied command getting caught asleep, in war time.
MacArthur not only got caught asleep, 9 hours after Pearl Harbor, but even put a ‘Do Not Disturb’ sign on the door knob.
‘’.. , he could take men from a land with no organized military tradition, and turn them into a force capable of repelling the Japanese- in under a year.’’
Had the Founding Fathers had organized military traditions by the standard of the time when they faced against the Red Coats/
What about the Afghans against the Red Coats/
‘’The actual reason (imho) was that he didn't want to see himself placed in command of a force predestined to defeat- so he used his personal status to radically alter U.S. grand strategy in the Pacific theater for the worse, and at the expense of other areas- including Hawaii.’’
MacArthur departed Philiphines on 03/12/1942, the battle of Midway was on early June 1942, less than 3 months. Had MacArthur not got caught napping with ‘Do Not Disturb’ on the door knob, 9 hours after Pearl Harbor, he would not have had the Far East Air Force destroyed on the ground, that meant U.S. would have had enough air assets to either repel the Japanese invasion force, or damage them enough to slow them down considerably, both during the landing, and after the landing, that would have meant U.S.N. could have sent reinforcement soon enough to counter attack the Japanese, using Philiphines as a gigantic Midway. This would have meant IJN could not have bypassed Philiphine to Guadal. The decisive battle would have been fought beyond the Dutch Indies, meaning no oil to IJN, and the Flying Tigers from China could have joined the fray as well.
‘’No, I don't believe that a theoretical destruction of U.S. transports at Savo would have changed either the outcome of the war.’’
‘’…. had it not been for Mikawa's (understandable) caution however, Savo Island could have resulted in a disastrous early end to the United States' first counteroffensive.’’
Ok, so nothing disastrous there strategically at Savo.
‘’The war still would have ended in late 1945 because of the American possession of the Atomic Bomb.’’
It wasn’t the bomb that made Japan surrender, despite the popular misconception. It was the Soviets invading Manchuria, and the poor performance of the Kwantung Army.
‘’It may however, have resulted in the abandonment of "Watchtower" (with another "Watchtower" being carried out some months later).’’
There would have been no ‘Watchtower’, had U..S succeeded in keeping Philippine, and U.S. would have, had MacArthur not got caught napping, 9 hours after Pearl.
‘’Logistical considerations alone precluded the Japanese from ever taking the Hawaiian Islands.’’
Why couldn’t IJA have landed troops in Hawaii/
Hawaii Under the Rising Sun: Japan's Plans for Conquest After Pearl Harbor – UH Press
‘’Raids on the U.S. west coast are fantasy because of the same reason.’’
With Hawaii, as the new base of operation, why couldn’t IJN raid San Diego/
Btw. Bombing a battleship from air was considered fantasy as well, by no less than U.S.N. just a few decades before Pearl Harbor.
Billy Mitchell - Wikipedia
‘’That the Imperial Army was bogged down in both China and Manchukuo,….’’
Easy, IJA could have withdrawn a few divisions from China, and Manchuria with no strain.
‘’… and that the Imperial Navy was already beginning to experience a shortage of pilots and aircrew by May of 1942 were just additional nails in the coffin on that matter.’’
With the conquest of Hawaii, IJN/IJA could have simply starved out the Allied in the South Pacific. That would have left enough IJN assets to raid San Diego, and the canal.
Still, even with that accomplished, U.S. still would have won the war, eventually, only additional 2 or 3 years.
1
-
''The cold war had begun and communist east squared off against the capitalist west. Choose your side wisely! In June of 1950 the North Koreans attacked South Korea beginning the Korean war. Which would drag the major superpowers in.''
Actually, it was Stalin who had instigated the Korean War. He had wanted to drag in U.S. for an entanglement in Korea, and bid Mao to keep the Americans busy there, and in return, he agreed to provide heavy, modern weapons to PRC, and when U.S. was fully occupied, he was going to strike Europe, fast and furious and provide U.S. with a fait accompli.
That explains why the Soviet Union abstained during the U.N. resolution sending U.N. force to Korea: Stalin WANTED U.S. to go there, and Stay there.
Stain had employed the similar ploy, entangling the Japanese with China/ROC before WW2 so that Japan could not attack Soviet Union, with German, which would have sealed the fate for the Soviet Union, and most likely, the entire Allied cause.
You can read all about it, 'Mao: The Unknown Story'.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MilitaryHistoryVisualized What about organizing it into competition/game between different groups/
Like a soccer game/team/
Different military groups, such as Public Military Group, PMCs, and further divided into,
PMGs into National/Central Group, Local State Groups, Local Municipal Groups, further divided into ones attached to Judiciaries, Legislatives, and Executives.
This will make them politically balanced as well, but brings out unit coherence as well, since one is joining like minded groups, more likely to motivated to do better.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
01:06 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jan/03/russia-ukraine-gas-supplies-gazprom
Not only Ukraine has been stealing Russian gas, but also engaging in subtle blackmail as well, by tempering Russian ability to deliver the gas, and by how much, and by when per pre-existing agreement.
https://www.rferl.org/a/1064991.html
Putin not happy with Ukraine's theft of Russian gas, and blackmailing Russia, by tempering with the gas in transit to the customers.
https://www.euronews.com/2021/10/01/russia-s-new-pipeline-bypasses-ukraine-in-pumping-gas-to-europe-kyiv-says
The 'West' has been engaging in a sophistry in order to sabotage honest, and transparent Russian effort to deliver the gas to the customers without being tempered by crooked middleman like Ukraine, totally for political purpose, even at the expense of their own consumers.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/16/business/germany-russia-gas-nord-stream/index.html
I would say Germany's failure to certify Nordstream 2 for political purpose in cahoots with U.S. was the last draw for Putin.
Putin made an honest effort.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Putin-Dissertation-Event-remarks-with-slides.pdf
03:43 Sounds like you're advocating we must adopt NK, and Soviet Union's policy before the collapse.
https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/north-koreas-military-first-policy-a-curse-or-a-blessing/
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-russia-wont-go-bankrupt-paying-its-military-buildup-28092#:~:text=One%20reason%20the%20Soviet%20Union%20collapsed%20was%20that,perhaps%20Moscow%20will%20go%20broke%20again%3F%20Not%20likely.
05:42 So does this mean you agree with NK on this one?
https://spectator.clingendael.org/nl/publicatie/why-north-korea-will-never-give-its-nuclear-weapons
08:30 Ukraine had had no means of building and maintaining a huge military: Ukraine did not, and still doesn't have a viable export industry that can enable a powerful military. Ukraine has wasted decades in indulging in corruption, stealing Russian gas, and blackmailing Russia, and that was the main reason why Ukraine has a trouble with Putin, not that it had a weak military.
11:38 An excellent point. Originally, the country Ukraine had had problem was not Russia, but Poland!
Ukraine agreed to become a part of Russia so as to gain protection from Poland.
However, later on, Ukraine had had no scruples, colluding with Poland and seizing Russian territory in the moment of temporary weakness for Russia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmelnytsky_Uprising#:~:text=The%20Khmelnytsky%20Uprising%2C%20also%20known%20as%20the%20Cossack-Polish,the%20creation%20of%20a%20Cossack%20Hetmanate%20in%20Ukraine.
.. and so had the Poles as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Muscovite_War_(1609%E2%80%931618)
11:53 Right on! Me, too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cedriceric9730 To the contrary , silos are notorious targets , some will absorb direct hits and still launch ,''
Hyeon mu -5 is designed to penetrate with even the silo of 100 yard hard rock formation.
''they will also likely be empty by the time the enemy warhead strikes .''
What if the enemy had launched the first strike with hypersonic, stealth missiles?
''Having the enemy know where they are increases their usefulness instead .''
Dude, are you for real? How so?
''They are so threatening russia plans to use almost a full megaton to destroy single silos''
This betrays your lack of knowledge in the area. The most advanced bunker penetrators does not use explosives, but kinetic energy.
''submarines are the ones at the dead end lol, quantum sensors are impossible to hide from''
Ummm, dude, you got it backwards, large stationary silo are far more detectable than mini-subs that remains stationary or move in the deep open ocean.
Besides gravitymeter sensors from satellites are far more susceptible to noise of the open ocean, on a small moving target than big ground level stationary targets.
Not only that subs in the open ocean are not going to inflict damage to the nation that owns it, not as much as that missile silo within the nation if the nukes within them are detonated. And chances are nukes within silos are far more likely to detonate than the nukes within the sub.
The enemy in fact, doesn't even have to attack with nukes; they can just attack those missile silos and detonate the nuclear warhead.
If the enemy successfully destroyed a nation's subfleet in the deep open ocean, the nation still has the option of negotiation or peaceful surrender.
If the enemy successfully destroyed a nation's missile silos, that nation may not even exist, certainly not in the long run.
1
-
@cedriceric9730 '' not really , even america struggles with directly targeting silos.''
Dude, you really need to update your knowledge in the area! ABMs before were never designed to hit the silos directly! You're confusing ICBMs with ABMs.
ABMs back in the day, were designed to intercept the oncoming ICBMs when they were descending; IDF did have a program to intercept ICBMs during the space flight phase.
Today's ABMs are different. If close enough to the enemy silos, they can attack those silos directly. Here are how things could work out. 1st wave of ABMs could attack the enemy silos, and damage them to the point the enemy ICBMs are not launchable without extensive, and dangerous repair.
This would give additional time to launch 2nd wave of kinetic ABMs to finish off the silos, and detonate the nuclear warhead in the enemy ICBMs in the silo, turning those nukes against the enemy. Game over, dude! Far more countries would gain this technology in time, without violating NPT. Those silos in CONUS are death traps in time.
''A lot of things can go wrong when you cant use satellite navigation and you have to hit a target the size of manhole....''
You must be joking; silo are far bigger than manhole, even mini-nuclear subs.
But you're right about space domination; it's vital to protect one's satellites, and neutralize the enemy satellites. Why KF-21 is going to have ramjet/scramjet hybrid engine instead of turbofan, to dominate the ultra high altitude to be able to launch micro satellites on demand, in real time, in big numbers, where they would have the biggest operational/strategic impact for the space domination.
With the addition of boosters, KF-21 could even work as suborbital fighter, for even more decisive space domination.
''..from the opposite end of the earth, yes present technology can get you shockingly close...''
.....actually closer than you think; ROK has 'Nuclear VIP' decapitation plan regarding both PRC, and DPRK, to track their Nuclear VIPs and neutralize them in one go.
''but for a silo which is designed to take a nuclear blast, shockingly close is not close enough''
Hyeonmu-5 is designed to penetrate hard rock formation 100 yard thick. Besides, 1st wave doesn't have to destroy the silos, just damage them so that the enemy cannot launch the ICBMs without extensive, dangerous repair.
2nd wave to follow soon after will finish off the silos, and detonate the nuclear warhead within those ICBMs.
1
-
@IndigoSierra ''I would like to point out that any ballistic missle is hypersonic. Many of them go Mach 20+. Hypersonic is generally considered mach 5+. And any missle that is going that fast is going to have one hell of a launch plume/IR signature, which satellites can easily see.''
So far so good, but you forgot one thing that distinguishes ICBMs with todays' 'hypersonic' missiles: The flight path, and the ability to control the speed, by turning on and off the engine.
'Hypersonic' missiles today do not go to the space, and descend on the target, like those ICBMs; they go straight to the target, within earth, sometimes real close to the ground.
''The primary method for detecting ICBM/SLBM launches is satellites to spot the infrared signature of ballistic missles. So even if the ballistic missle is difficult to target with radar, it can still be seen on infrared sensors, hence completely negating its stealth. How, precisely, can one make a ballistic object traveling at such immense speeds impossible to detect?
Dude, you really update your knowledge in stealth technology; they are not going to be just stealth against radar, but also infrared, and sonic detection, even. ROK just came up with the breakthrough technology that can turn off and on the ramjet/scramjet hybrid engine reliably after the ignition, on demand, in real time, during the flight. This is world exclusive, and the most advanced of its kind, certainly way more advanced than the Russian Zircon missiles.
So the hypersonic, stealth coating (against both radar, and infrared) missile can turn off the engine after reaching enough speed to get through to the target within the enemy AD zone, just below Mach, glide without being detected in radar, infrared, or sonic detectors to the target.
Infrared stealth technology based on Metamaterial is also in the works, the most advanced of which is being done by ROK. I try to post, but someone keeps deleting them for some reason.
ROK is going to be using them on KF-21, and missiles as well.
1
-
1
-
@chadwells7562 ''That kinetic energy will still require a ballistic missile to launch it. If you’re launching ballistics why not just a nuke''
Dude, are you for real? Because a missile that relies on kinetic energy alone has far more penetrating power than a missile with nuclear warhead. ICBMs are not designed to actually 'hit' the target, but explode above the ground, for maximum blast effect. Why and how those silos are designed to withstand nuclear blast.
Those silos are not designed to withstand a missile with kinetic energy, which will slice through those silo covers, like a hot knife on a butter in room temp.
Also, due to NPT, most countries will not be able to get nukes anyway.
But, hey, a missile with kinetic energy enough to destroy those silos and the ICBM within, they are 'legal'! Any country can do it provided money ( a lot less than nuclear), technical know how, and satellites; they are going to get cheaper and cheaper over time.
I'm telling you silo based ICBMs are going to be death trap for U.S. in time, eventually. They need to decommissioned asap; U.S. needs to switch to SLBMs. And maybe work on suborbital fighters for the Space domination. Kinda like X-15 a long time ago?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think the panzers should have been designed in modular, scalable fashion from the get go, than ad hoc fashion as it happened later. Interleaved track version should have been built during peace time for the coming war, for well trained panzer crews, but once war phase happened, the interleaved track should have been abandoned for non-interleaved version, and wider track adopted as well. In fact, the Germans should have concentrated on TDs with open turrets, 88s, with thinner armors, to be attached to panzers units, and TDs with open case mate, 88Ls to be attached to panzer grenadiers, but using the same suspension, engines, to take maximum advantage of economy of scale rather than panthers and tigers, more Panzer III or IVs and far more TDs, and squad portable assault mortars, but no Panthers, no Tigers, no sturmtigers. With III or IVs leading the way, to be backed up by TDs with open turrets, and further behind TDs with open case mates, and even further behind assault mortars.
This would have maximized both movement and fire power, but also economy of scale, reliability, durability, lower/easier maintenance. IIIs and IVs providing direct fire power against infantry, light fortifications, and enemy artillery, TDs with open turrets providing fire power against enemy tanks, TDs with open case mates, providing even further reserve fire power against enemy tanks, and assault mortars providing flexible fire power against both enemy infantry supporting the enemy tanks, and against the dense concentration enemy tanks themselves, at a relatively safe distance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mrvwbug4423 ''They have the best missile defense system in the world.''
Yes, they do.
''The DDGs escorting our carriers can shoot down satellites.''
They can as of now. If you're talking about RIM-161, they are guided by GPS, radar, and infrared.
But not the satellites to be coated stealth coating against radar, and infrared, especially radar-lock resistant stealth coating, without radar lock, radar guided missiles are useless; all very recently developed.
You can google Hahn Jae Won, stealth, or Jae Won Hahn, stealth.
1
-
1
-
@stijnvdv2 ''Missiles changed warfare, missiles are the new air domination.''
Missiles have been around for a while; it's the satellites, especially the microsatellites that can be mass launched from fighter jets at ultra high altitude to low orbit, in real time, on demand, economically, AND stealth, radar jamming technology.
''Ukraine proved that and the US military is not up to snuff....''
U.S. military is up to snuff, but has been in wars it had not been trained to fight, and wars, that U.S. should not have been involved with, in the first place.
''..sure it can fight insurgence in the Middle East with AK47's and blankets...''
At tactical level, at strategic level, it showed it could not.
''it can not however win an actual serious war, such as the one they are currently provoking with Russia and China.''
It can against PRC, real easy, but against Russia?
Btw. It is PRC that is provoking U.S. and others; U.S. is not provoking PRC.
1
-
1
-
@TylerWardhaha ''Subs are outside my knowledge base. However, we have sub tracking for both the atlantic and pacific.''
Stealth subs would be harder to track. Btw. The anechoic tiles the Columbia class is going to be using is already obsolete, kinda like the stealth coating on F-35. They work, but are not durable; ROKN had already tested them. Too much downtime on drydock. Good for MIC, bad for USN, and the tax payers.
ROKN is going to be using metamaterials based coating on subs; lifetime durability, and more effective than anechoic tiles. ROKN subs have been extremely successful in RIMPAC.
You can google, 'Wonjae Choi, underwater stealth', and go to Kriss link.
''When it comes to defense of a carrier, detecting subs in the responsibility of the destroyers and any subs in escort.''
In the future, it's going to be more 3 dimensional; ROK AF is going to be planning to use microsatellites launched by fighter jets into low orbit, from ultra high altitude, and using advanced sensors to detect SLBMs, to neutralize them.
''Also I have no idea what you mean my super torpedos.''
Supercavitating torpedo
Also, in the future, subs could become a lot smaller, unmanned, crewed by A.I. robots, after commissioning, go to the likely path of the high value targets, and just stay there, 'hibernate' till needed.
You can google, 'pibot', and go to newsatlas article. It's planned for planes, MBTs, SPGs, and Subs as well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@icecold9511 ''First, only the US currently has any stealth missiles.''
You mean, no country currently has stealth missile, including U.S.?
''And the very nature of hypersonic missiles creates intense heat. The aerodynamics of hypersonic are at odds with stealth. Hypersonic is not some pixie dust magic weapon.''
It's about to change due to very recent breakthrough.
You can google, hahn jae won, stealth coating, or jae won hahn, stealth, and look for Yonsei or nature article. ROK military channels confirmed ROK AF is going to be applying the stealth coating to hycore, hypersonic, stealth, cruise, smart missile.
It will be stealth against radar, infrared, and will feature active camo, blending with the ambient visual background.
''It is loud and proud.''
Anything above Mach will be LOUD. ROK recently advanced ramjet/scramjet engine technology even above the Russian Zircon.
The ability to turn on/off the engine, on demand, in real time, after the engine has been ignited, in mid flight. This way it can extend the range as much as 400% of Zircon.
The hycore missile could reach a speed, so that by the time it enters the enemy AD zone, it would be slightly below Mach, still very fast, and stealth against radar, infrared, and visual detection, as well.
ROK military channel also confirmed ROK had developed sonar based radar jamming technology. All it said was it tested successfully against all radars, including the AESA radar on F-35. ROK had to get permission from Lockheed Martin to test it. No know countermeasures worked against it. But so far I couldn't find any patents, or even the name of the inventor. I think ROK wants to keep this as the top secret, not to be shared with anyone.
All I know is that after the announcement of this radar jamming technology, soon Saudis, and Egypt made a formal tender, and UAE, Poland, and UK want to be partners of KF-21. LM wanted co-production deal but ROK refused.
I will try to find out more about this jamming technology. So far it only works point to point, one fighter jet against another fighter jet. ROK wants to advance it so that it would work point to multi-point, or even an entire network.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
04:37 What I read was that some SWAT cops got the robbers by having the bullets ricochet beneath the vehicle they had been using for barricade/cover and getting to their legs? It's actually SWAT 101, especially when one wants to put a suppressive fire around corner without even having to slice the pie. Why SpecOps keep enough distance away from the wall when they are traversing along the wall in linear in case get ambushed by the hostile from the opposite side. Btw. IJA had come up with that technique, sometime in 30s during their war in China.
04:48 I think that the powers that be are misguided on this one. The police eventually got them where they were not protected by body armors, IIIA, not necessarily by bullets going through the body armor.
Besides, WW2 style 'hot' smg 9mm fired from long enough barrel would have gone through IIIA, if the range was close enough.
Or they could have used slug for their shotguns, which would have gone through the body armor as well.
It was really more about suboptimal logistical/tactical preparation than failure of 9mm.
For LE application, other than special SWAT scenario, smg is still the way to go.
Basically, the same kind of hullaballoo, blaming the hardware, for the failure of 'software', as in FBI Miami shoot out, blaming 9mm, and going for .40, instead of suboptimal tactics.
05:25 Pro, 9mm smg is lighter, given everything else equal, less expensive, meaning more money for training, lighter, more compact ammo, more ammo to carry in person, more capability for suppressive fire to pin the hostiles, ammo can be cheaper, , especially for LE for volume discount, simplifying logistics even further. Less muzzle blast/flash, which can be important when firing at night, and/or confined space, especially inside the building. Easier/quicker to clear the malfunction, especially under stress, in real time. Also, better ricochet when one wants to get the hostiles through deflection, than 5.56, which don't deflect as well as 9mm.
Con, less range, but for LE, other than VSC, it really doesn't matter. Better penetration against IIIA and below body armor, but then how many hostiles wear III or above body armor? Besides, III won't defeat 7.62 NATO, so are they going to issue M-14 to LEs? Nuts.
Sometime in 80s, British came up with user adjustable electronic trigger control for the sear to make MP5 even more controllable in full auto fire, that is, full auto rate itself was adjustable from the theoretical mechanical rate, down, making the gun run cooler, and more accurate in full auto, but without losing the first shot accuracy of closed bolt.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gothlizzie1665 ''there’s a multitude of reasons people get rid of dog out side of it being aggressive!''
Yes, but not when it comes to aggressive doggie. People do not like to keep aggressive dogs around, for obvious reason, and can you blame them?
'' Hope that helps and hope you don’t own pets!''
I used to own a mutt, a Chiwawa, a Maltese, a bengal cat, a Japanese bobtail mix, and a Turkish Van mix.
The mutt died after complication caused by my brother stabbing the dog's anus with a ballpoint pen. Chiwawa strangled herself, while playing with loose string. Maltese we gave away when we moved to the new owner. I had to surrender the bengal, and the Turkish Van due to my injury on the left knee, and unable to take care of them. I had to put down the Japanese bobtail due to pancreatis and unable to afford the vet bill.
1
-
@rayanalzahrani8756 ''Just to let you know Saudi did acknowledge that war crimes....''
What's the big deal?
''..and as a result Saudi pilots receive extra training from NATO countries...''
What kind of 'training', and from which NATO countries?
''... were not allowed to get f-35s and had western weapons cut dramatically ...''
No, the reason was the Pro-Zionist Lobby in U.S. Why both MBS and UAE have lost confidence in U.S. and the West; ROK is going to step up in place. Just Saudi alone is to order 300 to 500 KF-21s. Egypt, UAE, Iraq are also going to order. ROK is building an entire city from the scratch filled with autonomous factories to build fighter jets, operational 24/7, 365, sans the maintenance. The understanding was that after the Abrahams Accords, UAE was to get F-35, and Saudis later on till the Pro-Zionist Lobby blocked the sales. Penny wise, dollar foolish move. So both MBS and UAE will turn to ROK for KF-21 instead, and no longer 'chained' to U.S. Foreign policy. IDF had already tested KF-21 AESA radars, and found it to be far superior to the one in F-35. So they should have anticipated what MBS and UAE would do if F-35 sales was blocked.
Also, separately, MBS no longer trusts the West and especially U.S., and here, not just the Pro-Zionist Lobby, but also MIC, and DNC as well.
MBS has been informed by ROK that if he bought F-35s, he would be 'chained' to U.S. Foreign policy; every time F-35 hits Mach, the stealth coating has to be inspected and reapplied. And only Lockheed Martin is allowed to do so. LM knows Saudis got money; LM has the conscience of an authorized dealership service center; you get the picture, and so does MBS. Trump does not want MIC ripping off U.S. but is ok with MIC ripping off the foreigners. MBS's probably thanking the Pro-Zionist Lobby now, for helping him dodge the bullet.
No country is allowed to inspect and reapply the stealth coating of F-35, not even Israel, and UK. So much for the 'Special Relationship', and BiBi wants to purchase F-22: Out of touch with reality.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@OpaqueNihilist ''South Korea makes some of the worlds best tanks, ...''
Soon enough they will make the best MBT by far, by the later version of K3.
It will be equipped with rail run, the world's best AD Laser, and electric motor that can be 'fueled' remotely, and the world's so far only active camouflage, anti-infrared, anti-radar stealth armor. It will come with an option of autonomous version, after the autonomous version of K9, K9A3, by 2040.
''..some decent missiles...''
Update: There has been a breakthrough. ROK is coming out with the world's first, and only hypersonic, stealth, (radar, and infrared) cruise missiles within a year or two. It also is 'slippery', radar lock resistant, even if the enemy locates it and targets it.
You can google, ''han jae won, stealth''.
Not only that hycore hypersonic cruise stealth missile will be far more advanced than the Russian Zircon: Up to 4 times the range of Zircon, with less predictable path, smarter.
It achieves this feat by being able to turn on/off the ramjet engine on demand, in real time, after it has been ignited. Zircon, and any other ramjet engines cannot be turned on/off reliably on demand, in real time, once it's been ignited. This allows hycore missile to coast significant part of the journey to the target, extending the range up to 4 times. It could achieve maximum stealth by turning off the engine some distance away from the enemy AD zone, so by the time it enters the AD zone, its exhaust would be too little to be noticed by the enemy IRST, with speed a little below Mach, so no sonic crack/boom: The enemy won't know what hit them.
''and AA systems...''
ROK's upcoming L-SAM is going to be comparable to THAAD, overall, except it will be stealth against radar, IRST so far less chance of being jammed when it homes on the target.
''and a great though still young aerospace program.''
...but very capable, ambitious, and able program: Russia and Putin had been a great help.
KF-21 using ramjet will fill multi-roles; point interceptor, mass microsatellites launch platform, on demand, in real time, during war, depending on the operational need, and suborbital fighter, both using boosters, and for SOF, using A.I. Pilot robots, no need for training, and expensive life-support system, with added weight.
You can google, Meet 'PIBOT,' the robot who can fly planes.
They're working on MBT, SPG, Sub version of pibots as well.
KF-21 is to be equipped with Virtual Laser Turret, VLT, by 2035. It will be strong enough to 'slice and dice' like 'Light Saber' at close range dog fights. Laser right now is not powerful enough, but 2035? Computer simulation showed that one KF-21 with VLT could neutralize up to 20 conventional fighter jets in close range dog fights by 2035.
''I'm going to permanently suspend belief if you think they could win an offensive war against the PRC by 2050 though... that's absolutely insane.''
Hadn't Japan defeated both China and Russia, and shocked the world?
4 billion 1960 ROK
1.8 trillion 2021 450 fold ROK
543 billion 1960 USA
23 trillion 2021 43 fold USA
In about 61 years, ROK GDP has grown more than 1000% faster than USA.
You can google, ''Bloomberg Innovation Index 2021''
At this rate, unless U.S. makes a radical optimal change from the foreign and economic policies of the past 30 years, or so, ROK GDP would surpass U.S. around 2050.
''The Chinese are at least a decade ahead of Korea in almost every weapons category....''
You're badly out of date: PRC cannot even make a decent jet engine for their vaunted J-20; they keep buying obsolete Russian jet engine, because their domestic engine has serious problems in all areas, performance, durability, and reliability.
Their down time is about 90%, primarily due to engine. Only 1 out 10 fighters on the books are available on demand, in real time. In comparison, F-35 with problems of its own, has downtime of only 25% in ROK AF. Considering the money, and the time involved, 25% is pretty bad; it should be 10% or less. Still, compared to PRC, it's a champ.
PRC fighters' VBR performance is rock bottom. VBR is the future, not the close range dog fights.
You can google, ''How the Chinese Air Force Lost a War Game To This Fighter Jet''
''Grounded JF-17 fighter jets expose fallout of deals with Russia, China''
Now, in contrast compare to below.
''One Raptor Down! US F-22 ‘Loses’ Air Battle To New Dog FA-50 In Cope Thunder Military Drills, PAF Claims''
KF-21 is going to be far superior to FA-50. One ROK AF pilot who had flown both F-35A, and KF-21 claims that KF-21 is far superior to F-35A, and projecting how much F-22 is superior to F-35A, believe KF-21 is going to be at least an equal of F-22, and with advancement in the future, is going to be superior to even F-22.
In stealth technology, PRC is a joke; J-20 has been caught by second gen Indian radar.
One of their biggest problems is the water leak on their J-20s! You cannot have a water leak on stealth panel! One of their maintenance procedure is to make sure to mop J-20s whenever it gets wet. Just because PRC claims it's stealth, and it looks like stealth doesn't mean it's stealth.
Besides the engine, they also have a serious problem coordinating electronics, a problem shared by both F-35/22s, too buggy software.
Why F-35s still have unexplained, 'shut down' problems; UK, Canda, and Aussies are all very unhappy with F-35. They are all interested in KF-21. UK is negotiating right now with ROK.
1
-
@OpaqueNihilist ROK has come up with the world's first, and only virtual testing environment that tests the real time coordination of all the electronics/mechanicals on demand from a pilot's input. Why FA-50 has had so far 0% accident, and the same with KF-21 so far; they both had been virtually flown on the ground, before actual take off.
It exceeds U.S. Hardware-in-the-loop simulation testing.
Google, ''조종성 평가 시뮬레이터(HQS) * Handling Qualities Simulator''
ROK is also one of only two countries to implement FASS, the other being Lockheed Martin, and ROK's version is superior to FASS used by LM.
Google, ''Fuselage Automated Splice System''
''..and their industrial and manpower side of things speaks for itself...''
I am not impressed.
The single biggest reason why PRC jets are so unreliable is also their total lack of No neutron based non-destructive testing. All high value military electronics have to be tested on this method. PRC simply doesn't care, because it limits the production yield when it fails the test, and they have to re-do it again, failing their quotas, ruining their career. They want numbers, big numbers, who cares if it actually works or not?
On radars; ROK is now surpassing U.S.
AESA radar ROK can focus on a dot on the screen and magnify it 20 fold, discerning whether it's a bird or a stealth plane, on demand, in real time. Also, more shock and heat resistant than AESA radar on F-35. IDF after testing ROK AESA radar wanted to partner with ROK, on the software side, but ROK chose Leonardo of Italy instead. IDF already has AESA radar on F-35.
PRC radars are a joke.
''The Weekly Debrief: F/A-50 Pushes Gallium Nitride Radars Into Mainstream''
ROK also about completed super torpedo: The world's most advanced.
More advanced version of Russian VA-111 Shkval
''Report: South Korea Is Developing a Super Torpedo That Could Attack at 200 Knots''
It's going to be longer ranged, more stealth against sonar detection, also smarter, self-guiding, till it reaches 'Can't miss Kill Zone'.
ROKN is also working on stealth submarine. Btw. ROKN subs have performed extremely well in RIMPAC for almost 2 decades. PRC nuclear subs are louder than 80s Soviet nuclear subs: They are a joke like J-20.
Google, ''Underwater Stealth technology becomes possible, kriss''
It's superior to anechoic tiles used by Columbia class. ROKN had already tested anechoic tiles; they are not durable. Too much down time on dry dock. MIC doesn't care because they get paid a lot of money for inspecting and repairing anechoic tiles, just like inspecting and reapplying stealth coating on F-35/22s.
''They are also geographically in a far more advantageous position.''
Yes, PRC is far more advantageous position to block, threaten ROK's oil/export route.
Why ROKN is going to be building world's biggest and the most advanced sub fleets, by 2050 when USN may not even have a presence in Asia.
Up to 8 aircraft carriers, divided into 4 carrier groups. Up to at least 6 KDDX Zumwaldt class stealth destroyers, and at least 3 arsenal ships.
ROKN is going to be building in Twin Tower configuration ala RN QE, but slightly bigger.
Propulsion is expected to be nuclear; I hear they're consulting with both RN for TTC, and French Navy for k22 reactor, and add ROK's own modular mini-reactor design for safer, more efficient operation.
ROK may even add new state of the art technology in later variations: Photonic Quantum engine.
''Researchers realized a near-perfect photonic quantum engine driven by superradiance''
PLN's most advanced aircraft carrier has CATOBAR, and EMOL, but no nuclear engine, but conventional diesel! CATOBAR and EMOL need nuclear to produce enough electricity. This is so PRC; they are only interested in PR stunt factor. The same with J-20 having canard for more control, but canard decrease the stealth factor. Why even bother with stealth plane if one's going to add canard?! Why I suspect J-20 is stealth in name only.
''All three countries share the same issue: birthrate. It's actually far worse for South Korea they just have far more immigration displacement.''
Yes, why ROK has the most aggressive and ambitious MUM-T plan in the world.
K9A3 is going to be autonomous, no human crew. UK is also very interested as well.
''Why South Korea Is Building Robotic Artillery''
This is going to be a game changer. ROKA is already implementing unmanned version into SPG platoon; initially 1 unmanned, and 3 manned, but is going to increase the ratio one by one to 3 unmanned to 1 manned.
By 2050, ROKA is planning to build up to 4 unmanned armored corps. I suspect this is going to be the tip of the spear of massive invasion force into Manchuria/NE China, and onto Beijing.
You see, the west coast of North Korea is flat plain: Very easy for armored groups to move fast, and cross into Manchuria. And another short hop, it's Shanhai Pass. The gateway to Beijing.
ROK MC could land in the rear of Shanhai Pass, after ROKN defeating PLN.
''RoK Army receives new Hyundai Rotem UGVs''
I suspect this is to replace the mechanized infantry in an unmanned armored group, and to serve as Recon/Scout as well.
It can turn 360 degree like a tank so could be useful in urban warfare as well.
''Hankook Tire exhibits futuristic airless concept tire i-Flex at Defense & Security Expo Korea 2022''
It could also work as drone carrier, with drone being autonomous as well, no bandwidth bottleneck issue, and far more jamming resistant than conventional drones.
Hey, IDF could have used this.
ROK also came up with sonar based anti-radar jamming technology very recently; I heard it from very reliable ROK military channels.
It's considered so top secret that it's not even patented, and the inventor's name unknown.
The reason how I found out about is that ROK AF wanted to test on the AESA radar on F-35A, but it had to get permission from LM; it did, and it worked.
Basically, it duplicates image and fill the enemy radar screen from top to bottom, and side to side, making it useless. Right now it only works point to point, plane A to plane B.
ROK AF wanted to refine the design further so that it would work from a point to an entire network.
One reason I think why KF-21 will have capabilities to launch microsatellites into low orbit, and could become suborbital fighter is the domination of space, and with advanced thermal sensors, and GPRs, ROK could locate, and target PRC/DPRK silo-based ICBMs and SLBMs, and take them out with hypersonic stealth cruise missiles. Before they are even launched.
Saudi, UAE, Egypt, India Iraq, UK, Poland are all interested in KF-21, and these are just major prospective customers, with several more minor customers as well.
KF-21 can use missiles from U.S. EU, and ROK; the only fighter jet that can do so.
Saudi's expected order: 300 to 500, India: 200 to 300. UK: 60 Poland: 40.
''KAI and KAL eye RoKA's future division-level reconnaissance UAV programme''
ROKA has refined USMC Osprey, and is trying to make it cheaper, safer, more reliable, with less maintenance, but just as capable.
''South Korea secures key technologies to develop stealthy, tailless UAVs''
ROK is going to build a BIG and Advanced military, by exporting them worldwide, it could build an economy of scale the size of U.S. ROK officially wants to become 4th largest: ROK really wants to be #1 weapons exporter in the world.
1
-
@OpaqueNihilist '' I agree in totality, I don't advocate for Imperialism but it's an inevitability in a heavily globalized world.''
I do advocate for Imperialism but only when it's necessary.
''The issue is the overreach and waning of the equal application of that power (it can still and inherently is oppressive, it's just equally oppressive in accordance to the nation states agenda) and what we've seen in the breakup of the Soviet Union, British and French empire, Austria Hungary German empire etc... the way you relinquish and adjust your imperialism based on your standing and agency in the world is just as important as the manifest reason you can apply it in the first place.''
Yes, like the whole world would been better off if all the colonial nations collectively had abandoned colonialism, before WW1, or if U.S. had sided with the Central Powers against the Entente, and divided up the former colonies with the Central Powers. The world would have been spared WW2, the Holocaust, the Cold War, and the Islamic terrorism as well.
''We should just be willing to bear those consequences. It's the whole "if it wasn't us, it would have been someone else..." which is true. It still doesn't provide individual justification''
If U.S. hadn't annexed the Native American lands, and Hawaii, someone else would have, and turned them against U.S. Wasn't U.S. justified?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In 1948, Shermans were still good tanks.
Couldn't IDF rely on U.S. tanks if not UK or French?
In the Yom Kipper war, Israel almost came to total defeat; Moshe Dayan had a nervous break down and cried in despair at one point. Only IAF air superiority, and the massive U.S. aid, and the inability of the Arab to blockade Israel saved her.
On the importance of trained tank crew; yes, it has been ignored in some countries, and IDF rightly emphasized it for obvious reason.
However, the future would be different. A.I. robot crew will be replacing the live human crew mostly, at the front line, execution level. ROK is already planning to replace the crew for SPGs/K9A3 by 2040, with autonomous K9s. UK is very interested.
It will spread to MBTs as well, eventually. SPGs have far longer ranges than any MBTs, and due to the improvement in sensors, and GPS, artillery shells from SPG are increasingly more accurate than ever.
At the strategic/operational levels, SPGs are going to be far more relevant than MBTs, especially when they are going to cheaper, have far longer ranges, and with increasingly far better accuracy than ever before, and no human crews to risk for, especially trained human crew. SPGs are going to be far easier to make it autonomous than MBTs.
SPGs are meant to be primarily deployed at the operational level, so massive, accurate, long range, on time, economical firepower on demand, in real time, most likely against the enemy armor concentration. MBTs cannot match that, no matter how good. For MBTs to be optimal, they have to be deployed in massive, dense formations, for breakthrough; optimal high value target for SPGs. Those powerful 155mm shells landing on the top of the turret will wreck havoc; No amount of reactive armor, APS will withstand them.
Putting the engine in the front did make sense at the time, especially for IDF. However, wouldn't putting the engine in the front make it more bigger thermal target? Also, it makes Merkava less balanced, on hilly terrain, especially when going downhill, fast. ROK in the 80s considered Merkava at one point, but found it to be very unbalanced in the rugged terrain.
At 15:35, below, you can see why this would be a problem in ROK, why K2 came up with the idea to blast the enemy tanks hiding behind the ridge, employing the tank version of 'Shoot and scoot'. Now, 'The Chieftain' claims this is not a big deal; one could simply call air support. He doesn't realize one may not have the time to call for the air support, when under fire in real time, when the enemy tank would have the advantage using, 'Shoot and scoot'.
The Furious Tank Battles Of The Korean War | Greatest Tank Battles | Timeline
The problem with the Trophy APS systems;
It's useless against enemy artillery bombardment. Tanks are meant to be used in big numbers for breakthrough. They are not really meant to be used in urban warfare. Also, APS system like Trophy are still vulnerable to enemy RPG or HMG attack. The enemy infantry could disable Trophy first, before attacking MBTs. Also, with development of more powerful lasers in compact format, the enemy infantry could silently disable Trophy, before attacking MBTs.
It starts at 03:22 below.
이제 가상이 아닌 현실! (주)한화 레이저의 차원이 다른 클라쓰~ 🤜ㅣ한화잇슈#17 (주)한화 소형 레이저 무기
01:22 1 KW, 500 meter range.
[현장취재] 레이저 소총을 개발했다고? '천궁-II' 탄도탄 요격 미사일 수출로 K-방산의 저력을 과시한 LIG 넥스원
Iron vision is a good system, but still vulnerable from small arms fire, especially from DSMs or snipers. Also can be disabled from compact laser infantry weapons at CQB range, in urban warfare, silently.
Combined arms warfare is meant to be offensive, not defensive, even at the tactical level.
I believe using MBTs for urban warfare is not the optimal use of MBTs. I think using AD autocannons/HMGs mounted on 'Technicals' would be far more economical use of resources. Why would one need tracks on the street? They have had bullet resistant tires for decades. 'Technicals' are cheap, easily disposable, repairable, and fast, easy to mount and dismount.
For heavier fire power in urban warfare, they could use breech loaded mortars, on armored cars, like French did, such as Brandt Mle CM60A1, both for close range direct fire, and longer range, indirect suppressive fire, behind a building.
And Raibo robot platform for battledroids!
Raibo - dynamic and versatile quadrupedal robot
As for Israeli MIC, their hey day was in the 80s/90s. They chickened out to U.S. MIC.
IAI Lavi
U.S. MIC opposed Israeli F-16 sales to Croatia, as a payback to Israeli opposition to U.S. MIC selling F-35 to UAE AFTER Abraham accords, and later to MBS!
So guess what UAE and MBS have decided to buy instead?
U.S. went out of their way to embarrass MBS after the Kashoggi deal; ROK went of out of their way to invite MBS, and give him 5 star VIP treatment when he was in the dog house, especially from the West, and the Rug Merchant/Erdogan.
Pres. Moon and Saudi Crown Prince celebrate completion of S-Oil petrochemical facilities
Saudi TV ridicules Biden in rare dig as relations sour | AFP
S. Korea and Saudi Arabia agree to build "new future-oriented strategic partnership
Who cares about Kashoggi?
IDF is no longer at the forefront; their ATMOS is a joke, a very expensive joke, a rip off. Anyone simply could buy the French CAESAR far cheaper, a proven platform. What does ATMOS offer that CAESAR can't?
Opinion – Denmark’s Procurement of Israeli Guns Has Not Been a Smooth Ride
1
-
1
-
2080 is too optimistic; I don't think we would have manned subs around the time. You can google, 'pibot', A.I. robot pilot. We would have sub version of A.I. robot pilots long before then.
The future strategy could be sending these autonomous mini-nuclear subs somewhere in the open ocean, after commissioning. Let it 'hibernate' till they are needed. Over a period of time, this would allow mass deployment of such subs in one go when needed.
Anechoic tile are not durable; ROKN had already tested them. They needed to be inspected, repaired, lots of dry dock down time, good for MIC to bill USN for a lot of money like they do with F-35, which needs to be inspected, and repaired every time it hits Mach, why F-35 is such a pain to maintain, and expensive to maintain.
Already, there is theoretically total stealth against sonar technology available, that is durable for the effective operational lifetime of the subs.
Columbia class is a good concept in its intention, but it's going to be obsolete really fast.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In terms of cost effectiveness, nothing still beats the 'technicals', flat open bed commercial light trucks, especially in ME. Real cheap to acquire, real cheap to operate, off the shelf components widely available, real cheap and easy to maintain, real easy and fast to mount and dismount, from HMGs, to mini auto cannons, maximum situational awareness, minimum speed to haul ass, and dismount in a hurry. real easy to improvise against IEDs, with additional armored bed sheet, but still ultra stable, minimum chance of roll over, maximum ventilation in hot weather.
U.S. could have learned from the French, and South Africans, who were the foremost experts in using armored cars against light infantry, especially their quick firing, breech loading mortars for direct fire at close range.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
0354 Raptor was never intended to fight a war of attrition on going basis: It was designed as initial 'tip of the spear' SEAD mission. After that, 4th gen fighters and fighter bombers can take over and do the mop off.
Stealth, 5th gen fighters simply do not have the capacity for ground and pound. The carrying capacity is too limited, and too restricted due to the stealth design.
Having 5th gen do the job of 4th gen is penny wise and dollar foolish.
0414 Dude, you don't use 5th gen fighters for escort duties! You might as well have pigs wear diamonds.
You use 5th gen fighters for initial, pre-emptive, SEAD, and some precision strike on ultra high value enemy targets.
For conventional air superiority fights, you might as well use 4th gen fighters; they carry far more warheads, and far more flexible in the kind of warhead they can carry than any 5th gen,
Plus 5th gen fighters, every time you use them, you have to examine the stealth panels, most definitely after they go beyond mach. This reduces the sortie rate. You cannot use them on going battle of attrition. This got to be done in a 'clean room', using specialized equipment, and technicians trained, EXPENSIVE, and Time consuming.
Now, ROK is developing hard baked stealth panels that are maintenance free to be used in KF-21s in the future, but ROK is not going to share with U.S.
0523 For stealth mode, F22 cannot carry externally: It must be carried in internal bay. If F22 is to carry externally, why not just use 4th gen, and equip it with F22 radars?
PRC 5th gen is a joke: 5th gen in name only.
F22 cannot use meteor, the best missile from air; why Rafael is a sales success.
F22 is a stealth, so less visible in enemy radar, but its missile range is far shorter than meteor. Rafael is a 4th gen, but can fire meteor, which has a far longer range than F22, and its radar is just as capable of F22.
So F22 can see Rafael, before Rafael can see F22. But Rafael can hit F22 before F22 can hit Rafael. Rafael's ability to see will keep improving; F22's ability not to be seen is not improving. In the end, F22 will lose its edge.
Me thinks stealth factor is overblown, especially in the form of U.S. style soft stealth panel: too finicky, not cost effective, too high maintenance.
Radar keeps improving, stealth panel is not improving at the rate radar is improving: radar is also far cheaper than stealth planes, and can be used on multi-platforms, spreading the cost of mass adoption.
The shape and size of internal bay of stealth planes limits the shape/size of the weapons it can deliver.
Stealth fighters cannot use the longer range, faster, more accurate missiles that 4th gen can use.
5th gen should be used for initial SEAD, and selective ultra high value targets only, not on going rumble in the air, not cost effective.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kloic9334 '' A MILLION ? What is your source dude ?''
From ROK geopolitics channel based on the reports from the Korean residents in Ukraine; not available almost anywhere, or suppressed news.
'Mr Parks' Bunmeikaika' is the channel based on ROK, where they report news that is 'screened out' in U.S.
The video is '사지멀쩡한 남성 난민 돌려보내야"/독일만 보내도 10개 사단 편성 가능!'
Zaluzhnyi reported 920000 deaths recently to U.S. Also, this was corroborated by Ukrainian media that reported Ukrainian death toll as 1120000 recently, but immediately got shut down by Zelensky as 'erroneous'.
They report news from Ukraine that is shut down almost immediately as 'fake news' by Zelensky, who canceled the election, while reporting 80% poll in his favor.
His channel has been very reliable, especially on Ukraine than this channel, at the grand strategic level; he reports from the people, both Koreans and Ukrainians, that Kiev regime is on the ropes, and Zelensky is making plans to flee with his ill-gotten billions; he had already purchased two yachts, using his flunkies as intermediaries, getting his wife to go on shopping spree on luxury goods whenever they go abroad begging for more money, to launder the dirty money to get as much petty cash as possible.
Their frequent trip abroad also doubles as real estate acquisition, and field trip for 'exile' after hightailing out of Ukraine.
More than 600k Ukrainian men AWOL; they don't want to die as cannon fodders for Zelensky and his flunkies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@enndubful ''It's a cop out to say that the responsibility is on Israel not to displace Palestinians rather than the Muslim countries to take then in.''
So per your logic, the West should have taken the Jewish refugees fleeing the Nazis after the Kristallnacht, so why hadn't they?
''Israel is waging a war against Hamas.''
No, the Zionist is waging war against any anti-Zionist, not just Hamas.
''That is a fact, and the question now is what are Muslim countries going to do to help limit civilian casualties.''
So why hadn't the West taken in the Jewish refugees?
''For example, Ukrainian refugees are currently being housed all over Europe.''
So why hadn't the West taken in the Jewish refugees?
''That doesn't mean that the countries that took them in are legitimizing Putin's attempts to annex the Ukraine. It just means that they are trying to help limit the humanitarian costs of the war, like any moral country should.''
So why hadn't the West taken in the Jewish refugees? Perhaps, because they were not moral countries?
''Muslim countries are refusing to take Palestinian refugees specifically because they want to use those refugees as pawns in the war for international support. They think it is preferable to have dead Palestinian refugees rather than alive Palestinian refugees and no propaganda to use against Israel.''
Yes, anything wrong with that. Hadn't the Zionist collude with the anti-Semites within U.S. to block the Jewish refugees coming to U.S. in order to encourage them to go to Palestine instead, or suffer the persecution under the Nazis so that they could use it for propaganda?
''Moderate governments also don't want Palestinian refugees because they tend to support terrorists trying to overthrow the local government and replace it with a government that is more antagonistic towards Israel.''
So are you implying they should go to outside Muslim countries instead?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@muzaaaaak ''except you leave out why the soviets bet the Nazis. US arms.''
While the Lend Lease was a very important part of the Soviet offensive victory in the East: it wasn't for the defensive victories through which the Soviets stopped the Wehrmacht offensive.
The Red Army had stopped the Wehrmacht offensive long before the Lend Lease, when the U.S. weapons started arriving in big numbers.
Btw. Was it such a good thing for U.S. to provide arms to the Soviets so that they could roll back the Germans, all the way to Berlin? Maybe U.S. should not have provided them so that the bulk of the Germans would be stranded way in the east, when U.S. landed in Normandy! Then maybe there would not have been Cold War, certainly not to the extent it ended up.
''You left out why US lost Vietnam.''
Hey, big thumbs up to you: at least you acknowledge U.S. lost in Vietnam! Too many people, still think U.S didn't lose in Vietnam!
''Fighting a war with hands tied behind back.''
There are two things you're missing here. First of all, Vietnam war was totally unnecessary, not only that it was counter-productive to U.S. strategic goals. U.S. could have easily turned Ho into a U.S. ally against both PRC, and the Soviet Union!
OSS had had a good relationship with Ho, who actually liked, and preferred Americans. Ho was anything but dogmatic: very pragmatic. He was even willing to work with the Japanese, as many as 5,000 IJA troops stayed on and trained Ho's army, and fought against French. As many as 50 Kempeitai, the Japanese secret police, all war criminals stayed on and worked for Ho.
U.S. was incredibly foolish, pedantic, and dogmatic, anyone labelled communists were all in cat hoots together!
Second of all, U.S. could not have really gone all in in Vietnam war, unless U.S. was willing to go to war against PRC, important supply bases were in borderlands of PRC.
Do you really think winning the Vietnam War was worth going to a nuclear war against PRC, and even the Soviet Union? Me think not.
Besides, the Soviets would have been happy if U.S. got into a nuclear war with PRC. So much easier for them to take over Europe.
''Shall I continue. Please go read more history.''
Oh, please do, so how did that work out for the Soviets in Afghanistan? Maybe they should not have gotten involved?
''While kill ratio alone doesn’t guarantee victory, it sure as hell diminishes the enemy.''
One should not go to war to get high kill ratios. One should go to war to get optimal overall net benefits that cannot be gotten without war.
''Further, UA has decimated RU arms and armor.''
The Germans had done better in Operation Barbarossa: how did it work out for them?
The Russian can keep manufacturing weapons so long as the oil/gas money flow in. Ukraine need to keep getting supplies from the West. How long do you think the West will keep supplying the weapons till they get tired of Ukraine, like they had gotten tired of Afghanistan, Iraq?
When the West get tired of Ukraine, Russia will still be there.
1
-
@reccecs4 No, ROK, born 1968, came to U.S. in 1982.
My father was a refugee from North Korea, part of his family escaped, the rest still in DPRK. His father, a journalist, his grandfather, a police chief of the Japanese police along the Yalu, got rich smuggling, designated a class enemy by DPRK after WW2.
In fact, I'm wondering why DPRK doesn't send troops to Ukraine ala ROK did for U.S. during the Vietnam War.
ROK soldiers got paid the same rate as U.S. soldiers, generating hard currency for ROK, which was a poor country back then.
DPRK can do the same: they have a lot of well trained troops, but mainly shitty infantry weapons, and armor and artillery.
1
-
@MrEnvirocat '' IMHO the West will slowdown or end its support of Ukraine when either 1) there is some great measurable victory by Ukraine, 2) Putin is deposed by Russian government or 3) Ukraine and Russia enter into peace talks. ''
There is another scenario, and I think this is the real reason why Putin invaded Ukraine, after looking at Dugin's books.
The financial/economic collapse of the West
''So far, Ukraine's victory is Russia not winning outright.''
Ukraine cannot win in the long run, due to its total dependence on the West for logistics. Its 'victories' are merely delaying the inevitable: It's like those German 'Victories', after Stalingrad. How long is the West going to support Ukraine?
''Something major will have to happen before the Dogs of War are called off.''
Yes, the one I think is going to do it will be the impending financial collapse of the West, if this continues for the next 2 to 3 years, an outright economic collapse, if the West refuses to disengage in the money pit/trap set by Putin till money 'runs out' so to speak.
1
-
1
-
@reccecs4 '' China invading Japan and then Hawaii in 1950?''
Not PRC, but Soviet Union, at the time, PRC was merely a hired gun, not really an independent actor.
''Okey dokey. Cool science fiction bro.''
No SF, but it's called, Grand Strategy. From the tip of the southern portion of Korean peninsula, it's a short hop with ships, and really short hop with planes, and even shorter with missiles. U.S. had major defense perimeter in Japan. The Soviet Union in 1950 was a grave existential threat: Russian Federation isn't.
''Lots better reason to be in Ukraine ....''
What better reason?
''than defending the backwater undeveloped rice paddy that was South Korea in 1950.''
Ukraine isn't in backwater? Ukraine today is not like ROK in 1950
Ukraine had 3 decades of time: what did she do to develop a self-sustaining economy? She's been stealing a lot of Russian gas in transit, and wanted to keep on doing it: one of the main reasons for Putin's invasion.
Russia today is not an existential threat unless one goes out of one's way to provoke it: the Soviet Union was.
1
-
@reccecs4 '' China invading Japan and then Hawaii in 1950?''
Not PRC, but the Soviet Union, PRC was merely a hired gun, not an independent actor at the time.
''Okey dokey. Cool science fiction bro.''
No SF, but grand/operational strategy.
''Lots better reason to be in Ukraine than defending the backwater undeveloped rice paddy that was South Korea in 1950. Even the troops fighting there couldn't figure it out.''
What better reason? Russian Federation is not Soviet Union, not even close.
Ukraine today has had 3 decades to develop an economy, but failed due to the endemic corruption, one of the worst in the world, worse than even in Russia.
One of the main reason for Putin's invasion was Ukraine's theft of Russian gas in transit, AND her plan to keep on doing it forever.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/feb/04/welcome-to-the-most-corrupt-nation-in-europe-ukraine
ROK, too, had been one of the most corrupt, but by 3 decades after independence, was rapidly improving: Where is Ukraine's improvement?
''Even the troops fighting there couldn't figure it out.''
Hey, at least they weren't raping or committing robberies in ROK, so I guess that mean they had better idea of what they were fighting for.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2334204/The-GIs-raped-France-We-know-mass-rape-German-women-Stalins-soldiers-Now-new-book-reveals-American-troops-committed-thousands-rapes-French-women-liberating.html
1
-
1
-
00:45 ROK is coming out with 100k laser weapon this year. They also are coming out with the laser weapon specializing in clearing landmines/IEDs.
05:22 Can the laser weapon be damaged by the lasers fired by the enemy? If so, drones can be eventually equipped with lasers of their own, when the laser units become lighter, and batteries become more energy dense? Eventually AI can take over in swarm attack against ground units.
08:16 What about using, 'Slice and Dice', like a light saber from Star Wars? Far more effective than track, aim, and point?
13:30 What about rail gun? I know USN has cancelled it; too heavy for USAF; too out of budget for USMC, but what about the Army, and the USSF?
14:56 Again, what about rail gun? And what if the enemy comes up with some kind of reflective coating that renders the laser beam ineffective. I know back in the 80s, people were talking about lasers for Reagan's 'Star Wars' scheme, but the opponents countered it would make lasers ineffective.
Also, they are coming up with 'Stealth' design for both missiles and smart bomb, which could be devastating, not detectable by radar, not detectable by IR, but still guided, especially by inertial navigation, augmented by GPS.
ROKA, for example, is planning to equip K3 MBTs with both a rail gun, as the primary armament, and laser as the AD, on unmanned turret, with an electric motor, eventually. There's a considerable difference in the proposed description of K3 in Korean, and in English, which does not mention railgun, laser, or electric motor.
15:37 Does this account for the potential use of reflective coating by the hostile powers?
As for space use, what about mini/micro modular nuclear reactors for laser/railgun use? It will have a huge advantage over the enemy who need to recharge.
1
-
1
-
@1wun1 ''How could taking Moscow alone make them win? Didn't Napoleon do the same and still lose?''
You're engaging in false analogy; there was no railroad in Napoleonic times.
Just read the book, 'Hitler's Panzers East' ; it explains in great detail why the Soviets would have collapsed. The author is an objective USMC strategist/tactician. No bs, unlike many USMCs.
Moscow wasn't a just a capitol. It was the railroad hub of the Western Russia, and main manufacturing center of the Red Army tank production.
All the Red Army units in Western Russia depended on the railroad, for the supply/logistics, and reinforcement, retreat. Once the German had taken Moscow, all the Red Army units in Western Russia would have been cut off from supplies/reinforcement/retreat/escape. Sitting Duck, waiting to die/disintegrate/captured.
Also, no more tanks for the Red Army in Western Russia; only other manufacturing center being Chelyabinsk, in Urals, too far away for help.
1
-
@liammiskell3522 ''What would taking Moscow have actually achieved?''
Foremost, taking over the railroad hub of the Western Russia, preventing the Soviet field armies, means of reinforcement/supplies/retreat.
Second, robbing the Soviets the major production area for T-34s, the only other major production area being in Chelyabinsk, Urals, too far away to send them in enough numbers to the Western Russia.
These two would have been more than enough for the total collapse of the Red Army, ending the war by a knockout FAST.
''This is actually something maybe people don't realise about the eastern front. German generals went against the wishes of Hitler and focused large numbers of the Wehrmacht on Moscow wasting time and resources, when they were ordered to concentrate on the Caucasus oil fields.''
This is where people like you don't get what really mattered. Caucasus oil field wouldn't have mattered, because the entire Red Army would have collapsed in Western Russia, the Axis still would have had enough oil to drive toward Caucasus oil fields; the Red Army defending the oil fields might as well have surrendered without a fight, when the entire Red Army had collapsed in Western Russia.
''By the time Operation Barbarossa begins the Axis forces are already struggling in terms of logistics and supplies.''
Of course, that was to be expected, other than Rumania, the Axis had no means of oil production. But it wouldn't have mattered because the Soviet Union would have collapsed in Western Russia.
''This is why Stalingrad is such an important battle because if the campaign had started earlier with more forces and supplies it's possible that the Germans might have took control of the Volga which would have made it very difficult for the Red army to launch the counter attacks which cut off the 6th army and put the Germans into retreat.''
No, Stalingrad was a fool's gold; with Moscow taken, the Soviets would have had no means of advancing/retreating/reinforcing/supplying field armies at the operational level; Moscow was the railroad hub of Western Russia!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Taskandpurpose ''very true, its easy to take the wrong lessons from observing that conflict. I understand where they are coming from saying a more decentralized spread out navy could make sense but I dont think thats the strategy the navy is going for with the "kill web" doctrine they have''
What's optimal for a typical 3rd world banana republic vs. what's optimal for an existing superpower to maintain the lead, vs. what's optimal for up and coming contenders are not the same.
Unfortunately, most nations buy stuff just because that's what the superpower uses, not realizing it's not optimal for their needs.
As for USN, I do agree with their present policy, but not the implementation. As for U.S. military overall, they need to downsize USMC badly, and get rid of airborne for U.S. Army, expand the SLBMs, but downsize the Carrier force gradually, and merge USAF, with USSF, and create suborbital fighter force to defend and dominate the space. Lose GPS, it's really game over as a super power.
As for grand strategy, U.S. needs to spend more on R&D, less on foreign ventures/money pits.
Who cares if U.S. has all these oversea bases, if the enemy controls the space, and denies GPS to U.S. millitary?
1
-
1
-
@Shinkajo I heard from ones who test drove Merkava. One, an Austrian tanker. He claimed Merkava was very top heavy, not a good thing when you drive in rugged terrain with steep inclines, especially in sudden maneuvers.
ROKA at one time, during 80s, seriously thought about adopting Merkava, but found Merkava to be too top, and front heavy. You don't want to drive a tank that is top and front heavy in rugged terrain, with steep inclines.
One tactic that was very popular during the Korean war, was ''Shoot and Scoot'' or 'Slicing the pie', tank style.
Tank A would come up from behind a ridge, looking/aiming/firing on the Tank B down below. After firing, Tank A would move back, and hide behind the ridge, before Tank B tries to find out the location if Tank B had dodged the first hit.
So the beauty of this tactic was that Tank A would expose itself to the enemy very briefly; ideally, Tank A would have a spotter enough distance away from Tank A, and inform the crew about the state of the target, so that Tank A would emerge on the top of the ridge, from the different spot than the last time, confusing the enemy, and minimizing the exposure to the enemy fire.
Not only that, only a very small portion of Tank A would be exposed, making itself harder to detect, and harder to hit, while Tank B would have its entirety exposed to Tank A, and the enemy spotter. Far bigger target: Far easier to locate/target/fire.
Furthermore, Tank A would be firing down below, at an angle that would hit Tank B, at perpendicular the slope of the armor, making the hit that much more deadly, and most likely the top portion of the turret and the hull, the thinnest, and the weakest parts of the armor.
Tank A on the other hand, would expose the front, the thickest part of the armor to the Tank B, and at an angle, that would make the hit a glancing shot, most likely to deflect, from Tank B.
Merkava, due to its top and front heaviness, was not ideal for performing this tactic. It was dangerous to perform this maneuver behind the top of the ridge, with its steep incline, and when Merkava got to the top of the ridge to fire, it could go tumbling down below, due to front heaviness, especially when performing fast in real time, on demand.
Tanks with rear engine, is more biased to the rear or neutral, so could use the engine placed in rear, as a counter weight to control the foreword portion of this maneuver.
It starts at 15:32.
The Furious Tank Battles Of The Korean War | Greatest Tank Battles | Timeline
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DubhghlasMacDubhghlas ''and there are counter measures to jamming. The patriot missile system can lock on to the jamming signal. Jamming still requires a signal to jam. ''
I know there are countermeasures to normal jamming, but not sonar based jamming.
''And I doubt what you mention is anywhere effective as you say it is.''
It has been tested on all radars in ROK military inventory, including AESA radar on F-35.
"sonar based anti-radar jamming technology" I googled that and found zero results that actually talk about sonar based anti-radar jamming.''
I couldn't find it, either in English; I found it on ROK military channel, but you have to understand Korean. YT translation is horrible.
''So, I find what you say very dubious.''
You have the right to question, I would myself if I were you, but I've found ROK military channel very reliable and solid, they had broken the news that Saudis and UAE are committed to buy KF-21, several years ago, before the news became available in English this year.
''Let's say this is something that nations are working on. It is not out yet, ...''
It is out, already installed and tested on KF-21.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Taskandpurpose He's generally more tactically oriented. Sometimes he confuses what is optimal tactically for a small unit, one individual SPG, strictly from end user point of view, instead of looking at strategic, logistical point of view.
Better to have enough SPGs with some poor ergonomics for the crew, than not enough perfectly designed SPG for the crew. Sometimes, you can't have enough of good ones to win the war, but can have enough of bad ones to win the war. But then other times he gets it.
Just look at German tanks vs. the Soviet tanks. Of course, the German tanks were the more ergonomic, especially the optics, but they didn't have enough of them. The Soviets had more than enough of the ergonomically inferior tanks.
His criticism of Tank destroyers was invalid. He claims TDs had been failures, because if they had been successful, then how come no one used it after WW2. So by his reason, turbo prop planes were failures as well, since they were largely displaced by jet, by the beginning of the Cold War. Btw. TDs had been kept in service by ROC/Taiwan long after WW2.
By his reason, paratroopers were not failures since they were/are still used after WW2. Not according to Douglas Macgregor, U.S. Army would be better off without the Airborne, and I agree.
BTW. Hahn Jae Won is the name of the ROK scientist who had recently came up with the breakthrough stealth coating, both radar, and infrared, and radar lock resistant. He has been working on them for several years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@aaronleverton4221 ''Yeah, you keep spamming that "sonar-based, anti-radar jamming technology" and lasers as if they are already deployed in the field and I'm the Star Wars kid?''
Ok, finally you show me you're interested, why didn't you say so in the first place?
''I rely purely on open-source and historical data, not speculative fiction, but, hey, at some point in this "discussion", you'll have something of substance to say.''
I rely on ROK military channels in a lot of technology, international military deals, because I found them to be far more reliable than any other sources, including this channel. But for some reason, whenever I post a link, they keep getting deleted, so you're going to have to google yourself.
Unfortunately, for you, to understand, ROK military channels, you have to understand Korean, yt translation is worthless.
There's no English source on sonar based anti-radar jamming technology right now; it's a breakthrough technology, very recent, just a few months old confirmed in ROK military channel.
VLT, or virtual laser turret is to be mass deployed by 2035 on KF-21, by then, the laser will be far more powerful than now, and will be able to 'slice and dice' at close dog fight range. Again, no English source at present.
But there are other areas of stealth coating technology where the international patents have been filed fairly recently, you can google yourself, and see for yourself how credible they are, in English. Just google, jae won hahn, stealth
He's the scientist who has come up with, very recently, to be adopted by ROK AF, for stealth coating on KF-21 to be mass produced using FASS, again, world exclusive mass production technology for assembling fighter jets; 8 times faster than the traditional methods.
FASS (Fuselage Automated Splice System), look for The Korea times article.
This stealth coating is far superior to the stealth coating on F-35, both performance, and durability. You see, every time F-35 hits Mach, it has to be inspected, and the coating reapplied, very expensive and time consuming, good for Lockheed Martin, bad for U.S. military, and the tax payers. Canadian AF are not happy; Canada gets cold and cold air are dense, increasing the friction, on the air frame; F-35s can't even maintain the stealth sub Mach.
The stealth coatings to be applied at KF-21 are one time application, good for the lifetime of the frame. Initially it was slightly inferior to the stealth coating on F-35, but after steady increase in performance, now it equals the performance against radar, and expected to exceed even F-22 eventually. Operating cost of KF-21 can be as low as 10% of F-35, depending on the Mach use, and the distance to the nearest authorized U.S. service center.
But there are more. KF-21 stealth coating is also stealth against infrared sensors. Yes, engine provides heat, but there are ways to decrease the heat signature from the engine, or even turn off the engine temporarily, and glide.
It also makes KF-21 'slippery', making the plane far more resistant against 'radar-lock', making the enemy's VBR radar guided missiles basically useless.
Other application includes active stealth camo that can be used on MBTs, even infantry uniforms.
As for sonar based anti-radar jamming technology, I couldn't find any source in English, it is so new, and considered top classified. I only found out because ROK wanted to test it against AESA radar on F-35 to see whether it would disable the AESA radar on F-35, and ROK had to get permission from Lockheed Martin to perform the test. So ROK military channel got it without violating the law. There are no electronic counter measures against Sonar.
Also, the AESA radar on KF-21 is far more reliable on hard use than the AESA radar on F-35, due to it being vibration resistant, and high heat stable, and far more survivable, due to modular construction, 70% of its capacity will work even when some of its components get damaged; AESA radar on F-35 will quit cold turkey, when just one component gets broken.
But the game changer is its ability to focus on an image on the screen, and magnify it 20 fold, on demand, in real time, it can be even preprogrammed to auto focus on any image during patrol/recon mode. This way, if it sees an image that could be either a bird, a debris, or stealth plane, it can focus, and magnify 20 fold, to determine its nature.
ROK had it tested by IDF, which was so impressed, that offered a co-production deal, but ROK refused, and offered the co-production deal with Leonardo of Italy. I think they want to sell them to ME, and Africa, to make them far less vulnerable to SEAD by 5th gen fighter jets.
You can google leonardo of italy, hanwha.
As for the credibility of ROK military channel, they had predicted Poland, K2 MBT deal, 2 to 3 years before being confirmed in any English source.
Also, Saudis, UAE, and Egypt are officially making offers to buy KF-21s, very recently. MBS toured ROK defense research center last year, picked their brain, and was so eager to sign the deal, but had to wait till the commencement of mass production.
Just google, Saudis, KF-21, UAE, KF-21, and Egypt, KF-21, all three very recent.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@elswagmaster6992 ''what's that got to do with anything?''
All weapons systems need to be tested on field conditions, not just in labs. Just look at PRC fighter jets, with up to 90% downtime due to poor quality engine, and poor design choice for J20.
''..and yeah the F-35 works, there are hundreds.''
Considering how much money has been spent, and how many years, and F-35 did not come even close to meeting the original goals, and how many F-35s have crash landed, to this day, they are failures, plus they still have not so corrected those deficiencies.
1
-
@elswagmaster6992 '' well, they're combat capable stealth multirole fighters, there's just under 1000 of them, either fielded by the United States..''
Yes, the JSF! The concept was attractive, common platform, economy of scale, but too bad, the needs of USAF, USN, and USMC were too different from each other.
''..and sold in abundance around the world to America's allies.''
... and do you realize many of those allies are not happy with F-35?
''The current loss ratio of the delivered platforms is less than 1%, ...''
The documented current loss ratio doesn't tell the whole story. Whenever you have a documented complete loss, you can assume it didn't happen in vacuum, but there had been 'shut downs' of many other F-35s before, for 'emergency maintenance', and most certainly after the documented loss. This reduces the potential available sortie rate for the squadrons. In war times, under hard use, this could easily result in the loss of air superiority, a No-NO!
Just look at PRC; they, too, have had documented losses before, and still now. Wh'at would be percentage rate of loss, based on documented loss rate, not that bad. Probably not that much different from F-35s. Of course, PLA has been caught trying to hide an actual loss, but got caught by their own public, at least once. So their real loss rate could be quite higher than the documented loss rate. What about the downtime for their jets? I've read it's as high as 90%!
Another word, up to 90% of their jets could be unavailable on demand, in real time. This is unacceptable in war times. (But Great for USAF/USN/USMC!), but is not shown by the documented loss rate.
Similar for USAF/USN/USMC, they all tried to hide the real loss unless they knew they would get caught. The same with some of U.S. allies, such as Canada, for PR reasons. Canadian AF had one of their F-35s crash landed very recently, but I couldn't find any reference to it in English. I heard about it from ROK military channels, about Canadian AF VIPs visiting ROK to attend KF-21 demonstration/testing flights, and inquiring about purchasing, that they were not happy about their brand new F-35 crash landing, and their pilot getting blamed, but Treadu wants a good PR with U.S.
''over half of those being the much less common VTOL F-35B.''
Yes, it was misbegotten; F-35B should not have existed.
''Not meeting original goals doesn't make a project a failure,....''
.... then does it make a success?
''it isn't like they don't function or exist.''
If F-35s had functioned to the satisfaction of U.S. military, when why had Charles Brown gone out of way to claim F-35 is not suitable for the needs of U.S. military?
You can google, ''The US Air Force Quietly Admits the F-35 Is a Failure''.
''Your criteria for failure being that it cost a lot of money, didn't meet original goals, and some were lost in accidents, applies to just about every fighter out there. If a B-2 were to crash tomorrow would that make the B-2's a failure?''
It's not just my criteria, but the criteria set by Charles Brown. the chairman of the Joint Chief of Staffs, ex-Chief of Staff of USAF.
Can you name some fighter jets that cost a lot of money, did not meet the original goals that were/are considered success?
''Of course not.''
Are you saying F-35 is a success?
''Lemme ask though because you got me confused on the context of this, why are you rambling on about the F-35.''
Just because a weapons system shows promise on paper, doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be a success in the field, under hard use; I was using F-35 as the most recent and famous example, since there have been so many positive expectations of F-35s.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kylezdancewicz7346 ''Ah yes it’s fails at being a low end jet, of course as they said they made it do too much for it to be cheap, they didn’t say the plane sucks and is a absolute failure, ...''
I didn't say it was an absolute failure; why are you trying to put words into my mouth I had never said?
''you said they said that, they just say it doesn’t work as a low end fighter.''
I did not say that; why are you lying?
''They didn’t say it was a bad plane they just said it wasn’t the plane they were trying to make as it was higher maintenance, tech, and costly the what they wanted, ....''
Another word, it wasn't the plane they had had in mind: Failure.
''by the way these statements were 2 years ago and the amount of F-35s in service have nearly doubled since then.''
About 700 F-35s by 2021, 975+ by 2023, not even 50%; why are you lying?
''Also I see you completely ignored me giving you empirical data on how reliable the F-35 is, Also I have and it over 5 so you don’t need to quote the comment your responding to unless you feel it is absolutely needed.''
I had asked for the source/link, and you refuse to provide: What are you hiding?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kylezdancewicz7346 ''I sadly can’t find anything about how the maintenance cost is divided, maybe you can have some better luck, because extremely specific information on advanced jets are hard to come by...''
Do you know why it is more expensive to maintain than others?
'Questions About Costs, Force Mix Could Spell Trouble for F-35A'
Based on what I've found out from ROK military channels, basically 3 reasons why F-35 operating cost is so high.
1. Single engine, asked to do much, reduced durability and reliability, with more maintenance needed as a result.
2. Buggy software, and inferior QA than ROK AF.
'''29 F-35 have crash and the F-35s have cumulative flight hour of 721,000 hours so about 25000 flight hours per crash. The average flight hours for a crash is 15000, make this plane insanely reliable.''
'South Korea’s FA-50 Aircraft Achieves Remarkable 100,000 Accident-Free Flight Hours Milestone'
3. Fragile stealth coating: F-35 needs inspection every time F-35 hits Mach, and reapplication of the coating, cold weather making it even worse; why Canadian AF are not happy with F-35, and instead looking at KF-21.
KF-21 stealth coating is metamaterial based permanent one time application during assembly.
''Bugs can be fixed and it’s Ew and computational abilities is still quite impressive.''
...but it hasn't been fixed yet, and unlikely to change since USAF QA technology is no longer the state of art. Still ahead of PRC, but PRC has downtime of up to 90%, while F-35A is only 25 to 35 to 50%. 25% being ROK AF.
1
-
@kylezdancewicz7346 ''Advancements take time and need to be incremented, .....''
I agree, but the implementation of aforementioned idea hasn't been smooth with F-35, with too much changes from the original concept in favor of passing fads. KF-21 has been done the way F-35 should have been done.
''..this was a very advanced plane when it was designed and was bound for bugs and problems.''
Too much introduction of unproven technology, with not enough QA.
''It’s still an advanced and cutting edge plane now, ....''
Not really; its stealth technology is about to become obsolete in favor of metamaterial based stealth technology of ROK.
Its AESA radar has already been surpassed by the AESA radar to be implemented for KF-21, and FA-50 later versions; even IAI was impressed with the ROK AESA radars to the point they had offered software partnership with ROK, which declined in favor of Leonardo.
ROK KF-21 AESA radar has been built with robust modularity, built in redundancy, far more than the AESA radar on F-35. It's designed to be far more vibration/shock, and temperature/temp change resistant than F-35 AESA radar. It is designed to retain about 80% capability even when some of the components malfunction. F-35 AESA radar shuts down 100% when just one component fails, and it is already far more likely to fail than KF-21 AESA radar.
Not only it's about 20% more capable than F-35 AESA radar, but also it has a triumph card: The ability to focus on a dot on the screen and magnify it 20 fold, to discern whether it's a bird, or a stealth plane, in real time, on demand, can be even preprogrammed to activate automatically on its own on dots that have not been identified.
It also has an ability to launch a2a missile as soon as the enemy fighter enters its radar coverage automatically, when preprogrammed in advance, depending on the mission, where the chance for the collateral damage is unlikely.
Its stealth coating also includes not just against radar, but also IRST, and radar lock resistant, so even if the enemy fighter sees it first, and applies radar lock, it is likely to be slip.
'jae won hahn, stealth'
KF-21 will eventually come with built-in autonomous option as well: Far less chance of 'pilot bottleneck'.
''...and is still a quite functional and effective plane.''
Just not the goal intended: JSF not. More of a SEAD specialist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
M109 badly needs upgrade. 1. It really needs auto loading.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSTlQxIH4yI
2. It also needs auto feeding from outside directly: this is critical when fighting a battle, under enemy fire.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3Ss8ngOUl0
3. It also needs better ToT cabability.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyPwScT9D_U
4. It needs upgradability to MUM-T.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ30j-VFqrs
ROK is all in with MUM-T: K9 will be totally unmanned eventually, and serve as a mobile platform for autonomous UAV for SPG for identifying threats and targets as well.
ROK K9 has all those covered, why it is the most exported SPG in the world.
Latest news Norway tested 4 contenders for its SPG requirement, and in the end, only 2 remained, the German Panzerhaubitze 2000, and K9. K9 ended up winning for several reasons, 1. More reliable in cold weather 2. easier maintenance 3. External auto feeding by K10 4. A lot less expensive
I read that during 2019 conflict between India and Pakistan, Indian K9s destroyed the Pakistani Paladins, which outnumbered the Indian K9s by 2 to 1, and had fired first.
1
-
02:50 Reminds me of the beginning of the end of the Soviet encirclement of the German 6th Army in Stalingrad.
05:50 I used to agree till fairly recently. However, Russian MBTs are largely obsolete MBTs, with no APS. Israelis Merkava without APS had suffered huge loses for similar reasons during their incursion into Southern Lebanon, after APS, I hear no loss.
So it's a bit premature for the fall of WW2 style MBT tactical doctrines, when MBTs with APS emerge.
About the only Russian tank with APS is T-14. How many T-14s have been knocked out?
10:54 Equivalent to Ruhr Industrial region in Germany, WW2. Once lose Ruhr, the war was over, only mop offs.
12:38 No worries, Russia is paranoid of PRC ambition in the Russian Far East, why Russia wants close relationship with ROK, and prefer ROK to move in as a partner in the Russian Far East.
13:22 Thanks for your objectivity.
14:44 Any nation has the right to invade any other, provided enough power, and enough motive, just like U.S. had with the Native Americans, Hawaiians, and the Russia had had with the indigenous tribes in the Urals, and what would eventually become Russian Far East, and the UK had had with India, Japan had with Korea, Okinawa, and Hokkaido, and Korea had had with Jeju Islands, and parts of Manchuria, centuries earlier. Poles had had with the Ukraine, and Russia, etc. etc.
14:56 I have a more nuanced position on this one. Yes, I had opposed the invasion of Iraq from the getgo, not for 'moral' reasons, but strictly for pragmatic reasons. Yes, U.S. invasion of Iraq did make the pseudo-Islamic wannabee problems worse, but the problem had been there already, with or without U.S. The root of the problem is that the Arabs, more than anyone else out there, with the possible exception of Han Chinese, are prisoners of the past, long gone, proverbial slaves of dead culture/civilization, and engage in false analogy, that is, since at the height of their power in history, they were 'Muslims', and that's why they were the greatest, so all they have to do to reclaim that lost glory is to strengthen their 'Islamic' faith!
Basically, their own version of proverbial 'Cargo Cult'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult
16:17 I call them contractors, but I don't think I am necessarily 'Pro', not necessarily 'Anti', either. I consider myself pragmatic on this issue. Before Westphalia, the use of 'free companies' was 'normal', with far worse conduct than today.
Under certain conditions, the use of 'contractors' can keep the 'regular' military more effective and more efficient as well.
The effective use of 'contractors' ala 'free companies' was shown during Goryeo dynasty in Korea, contrasted with later Joseon dynasty, roughly around the same geographic area.
Under Goryeo dynasty, there were 3 different militaries, one the Central Royal Army, two, major warlord private armies, three minor warlords private armies.
CRA was the single biggest military, but still smaller than the combined might of the Ma private armies, who, in turn, collectively, smaller than the combined might of the Mi private armies.
Ma private armies were feuding with each other, if any single ambitious Ma private army decided to 'unite' the Ma private armies, the rest would join and gang up against the would be 'uniter'. If that was not enough to dissuade the 'uniter', then CRA would land hand to prevent the unification.
So Ma private armies, if they wanted to grow, they had to go outside the 'Major League', to absorb the Mi private armies, one by one. So Mi private armies ended up forming an alliance with one another for mutual defense against Ma private armies, and also ask for CRA for help as well.
This way, all three militaries kept each other in balance, and motivated each other to remain fighting effective, and since both Ma and Mi private armies' commanders were owners as well, they wanted to keep the cost under control, making them efficient, and little waste.
Under later Joseon dynasty, the private armies became illegal, Only one single military, CRA, and no ownership, all the commanders were appointees, serving only a few years with one unit at a time.
In theory, this made economy of scale, making military more efficient, and more effective as well, since one single unified tactical, operational, and strategic doctrine, and unified training.
In practice, this made Joseon military both less effective, and less efficient.
Since militaries were no longer fighting or ready to fight each other, had very little practical experience. Since so little experience, there was no way to test the unified training was really effective or not.
Also, since commanders were no longer owners, and served only a few years with one unit, they no longer had the incentive and/or in depth knowledge to save the cost, they didn't have to pay out of their pocket, but just send the bill to the government, and also provided the bane of all militaries today, the opportunity for graft, by charging government, with non-existent soldiers.
and the general overbilling, and pocketing the difference, 'kicking the can' down the road, for the next commander!
also opportunity for favoritism, promoting political favorites, member of the old boy's club, gross injustice, by falsely blaming honest commanders, to protect their flunkies,
17:00 I agree. Just look at 'Winter War', and 'Khalkin Gol'.
Despite the brilliant beginning, the Finns were doomed, and they had fought a lot better than the Ukrainians today.
Btw. What eventually doomed the Finns were the lack of enough artillery shells in the later 'ground and pound' phase.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War
Again, notice how well the IJA had fought against the Red Army in the initial phase.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol
17:08 I think you worry too much about PRC. PRC today is like much feared, but dying/decaying Soviet Union in 70s.
''China's Crony Capitalism: The Dynamics of Regime Decay''
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minxin_Pei
I find Pei to be the most objective, and informed expert on PRC today. Like I had said, ROK expects the collapse of PRC by 2050, and has a big plan post-PRC.
17:08 Oh, I wouldn't project that far. That's what some of the corrupt, self-serving powers that be (in U.S. 'West', and their flunkies) want us to believe. They want a long protracted war for Russia and Ukraine, so that they could profit from it, and use otherwise well-meaning people as their 'front'.
I worry about ROC/Taiwan forming an alliance, with Japan, against ROK, post-PRC, since they both do not want ROK to succeed. What would/should U.S. do? Now, UK would not object with ROK's plan, and neither would Visegrad group.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visegr%C3%A1d_Group
EU/NATO might break apart by then, between anti-Turanian and pro-Turanian faction.
UK, and Visegrad group would be partial to Turanian alliance, Tureky might object, since she has her own ambition of Pan-Turkist alliance, which would be encompassed by Turanian alliance. Russia might be forced to choose Turanian over Turkism as the lesser danger.
Both AUKUS and QUAD are likely to break apart over the differences regarding Turanian alliance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turanism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-Turkism
17:18 More than enough, do you remember the 2nd Chechen War, compared to the 1st? Chechnya was nothing compared to Ukraine today.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Slava_Ukraini1991 ''im pretty sure that the exhaust they give off would give them away immediately.''
IRST has very short range detection compared to radars, and by one IRST, it cannot estimate the range as accurately as radars.
But I read that Swedes are working on technology of using triangulation based on two IRSTs to estimate the range accurately, but still it is short range compared to radars.
Furthermore, the hypersonic missiles can turn off the engine some time before entering the IRST zone, so by the time it enters IRST zone, it would not generate enough exhaust to be detected by IRST, but still very fast, not the maximum hypersonic speed of the missile, but still way above Mach.
''we have hypersonic interceptors as well.''
Who are 'we' here? And the name of the hypersonic interceptors?
''hypersonic are probably easier to predict since they are not made of tin cans and fertilizer held together with duct tape and hope.''
Even regular hypersonic missile generate 'plasma stealth' at hypersonic velocity, meaning it cannot be tracked by radars.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dear Metatron, I agree with that European Knights were formidable adversaries in the battle of Mohi in CQB, costing many Mongol lives, but for the price of equipping and training a knight, one could equip and train many Mongols, and logistically a lot more sustainable to maintain as well plus both strategically and tactically a lot more versatile. A knight was basically a one trick pony, 5 star in the heavy shock cavalry for tactical offense, 5 star in the heavy infantry for tactical defense, but very expensive to maintain, and equip (a proper knight had several people attending him, plus his war horse needed wagons of fodders), a Mongol needed minimum logistical support. Mongols could serve heavy shock cavalry, mounted archer, and if needed, heavy shock infantry as well (as shown in the previous campaigns in ME, China, and Korea as well.)
Also, tactically Mongols had devised a few new, but critical innovations from the previous Nomads that gave them huge advantages. Mongols had reared their horses not to neigh so that they didn't have to use bridles (so that Mongol horses could breathe more freely, supplying more oxygen, acting like turbo charger, so they had far bigger stamina, endurance than their adversaries' cavalry, including other nomads and the knights as well.)
This gave the Mongols the advantage of silence, a critical tactical advantage, especially when a large number of cavalry were moving, or setting an ambush. Btw. Mongol horses were unshod, which gave them far more sure footed in slippery grounds. Mongol cavalry destroyed Tangut cavalry by fighting them over the frozen river: Tangut cavalry were shod.
Now, the Mongol horses that still neighed were simply killed off, so the law of selection produced horses prone to not neighing.
Mongols also trained the horses to find water sources by deliberately not giving water to ponies so that the mother horses would seek to find water sources on their own.
This gave Mongols the advantage of better being able to find water so that they could move more efficiently strategically as well.
Also, I disagree with your notion that it was the preponderance of castles that kept the Mongols from invading: Not! Mongols had had no problem conquering Jin Dynasty in Northern China with many, big castles. Mongol strategy was simultaneously laying siege to starve the defenders into submission, and setting up an ambush for the relieving army. Mongols could do this due to their outstanding strategic mobility.
The same strategy was used again Korea: Korea is 90% mountainous, with many mountain fortresses. It took Mongols multiple invasions, and about 30 years, but they managed to do this. Korea at the time could raise 300,000 troops based on total mobilization, with about 20,000 general purpose heavy cavalry, acting as both shock cavalry, and mounted archers, plus 280,000 heavy infantry and light infantry archers. Korea had successfully defeated several major invasions by Khitan Liao dynasty, whose cavalry was pretty much the same as the Mongols, mainly based on the network of mountain fortresses. Korea also had successfully defeated several major incursions by Jurchens, who had later set up the Jin dynasty the Mongols had fought against, after overthrowing the Liao dynasty.
Koreans also had the best archer technology in the East Asia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyeonjeon
It was originally invented during the Mongol invasion. It far outranged the famous English Longbow by a wide margin. Generally, infantry archers could shoot more powerful bows, with better accuracy, and better speed than mounted archers, given everything else equal. And this gave Koreans some victories against Mongols, both in sieges, and open field battles, still in the end, Koreans sued for peace.
Tactical advantages alone doesn't guarantee strategic victory.
The real reason why the Mongols gave up the conquest of Europe was not the knights with their tactical advantages in heavy shock cavalry roles. Europe was not a rich picking. Plus, it was further from the main base in Central Asia than either ME, or China. Less rich picking, more time consuming, more overhead, time was money. Mongols decided it simply wasn't worth the effort. Basically, the same as the Romans why they had decided not to venture beyond the major river. Northern Europe was a slim picking, and far further away than Gaul. Not worth the effort.
1
-
Pitbulls can be wonderful pets. I'm planning to adopt one myself. However, the word to the wise.
The tail. You want to adopt a pitbull whose tail is mostly down, even when wagging, or engaging in zoomies. Horizontal is ok so long as the dog is doing something really active such as zoomies.
The pitbulls you don't want to adop has tail mostly up, almost vertical, either rigid, or wagging rapidly, but narrowly, even when doing nothing. This is a sign of dog that is high strung, and unstable, even when they are friendly.
Also, look at the pupil. You want the dog's pupil to be as undilated as possible, other than extremely dark ambient lights. The dog whose pupil is fully dilated even when it's normal ambient lighting is another sign of high strung, easily provoked, unpredictable doggie, like in this video.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
0011 Tell him you're gay.
0144 Very perceptive, I am impressed that a grunt understands kill ratio is not everything. In Winter War, the Red Army suffered higher kill ratios than any other wars in their history: They still won.
In the Eastern Front, the Germans consistently inflicted higher kill ratios, especially at the tactical level on the Red Army: They still won in the end, decisively.
0456 Brilliant, why didn't you go to West Point, we need more generals like you!
Oh! I'm not so sure about that. Ukraine hasn't tried to build a sustainable industrial base since independence, relying on mooching off Russian gas instead. I can see why Putin is pissed.
0659 I heard that in ROK military channels that Putin had made a phone call to ROK, not to sell K9 SPGs to Ukraine, either directly or indirectly.
0951 Right on, the similar tactic was implemented in Kalkin Gol against IJA, ground and pound 24/7, wear then down. It didn't matter IJA had higher kill ratios.
Effectiveness is always more important than mere efficiency.
1025 200 KIA! They do have fighting spirit, that's for sure.
1120 Very objective of you. I wish Zelensky hadn't tried to cozy up the West too fast, too soon, and clamped down on Ukranian gas companies stealing Russian gas in transit. Then, Putin wouldn't have invaded.
Very good analysis overall, but I still think you need to cover that Ukranian theft of Russian gas, and the West implicitly supporting this theft. Ukraine is mooching off Russian gas. Putin's dissertation was on oil/gas.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bracoop2 No, Ukrainians, but training them to fly will take at least 2 years, and further training to take on the best of the Russian AF will be another, so total 3 years, by then the war might as well be over.
Not only that, it will not make as much difference as many think. They will have to build the bases far away from the border, and the Russians have Zircon, that they can launch anywere in Ukraine. So the Russians will harass them building the bases, further delaying the deployment.
So the response time will be slow, and when they engage the Russians, the fuel will be lower, meaning not as many evasive maneuvers as the Russian AF could.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Wow! Cappi really has improved on air coverage since he did on F-35!
Yes, U.S. would have been far better off; keeping F-22, and improving on F-15, and forgetting F-35, especially F-35B, basically, a very expensive gimmick.
I agree, the stealth is greatly over-rated. To be 'stealth at the optimal level, the plane will have to have internal bay, severely limiting both the total amount of warheads that can be carried, and the size of warhead that can be carried.
This means stealth plane won't be able to carry the missiles or bombs that cannot be fit into the internal bay, limiting the punishment that can be meted out to the enemy, and the range one can engage the enemy.
Also, maximizing the internal bay will have to sacrifice the durability of the frame, meaning a severely reduced lifespan, and increasing the unit cost of the plane.
Not only that both the radars and missiles are improving faster, and less expensively than the stealth coating.
What good is the stealth, even if you see the enemy first, you still have to get closer to be able to use your missile, to the point, you become visible to the enemy, and he still outranges you?
Why the Dassault Raffael is still selling today, its missiles outrange F-35's.
Also, on stealth coating, U.S. uses soft panels, that are neither durable nor robust; they have to be replaced after F-35 hits Mach, F-35s have to be inspected after every sortie for the integrity of the soft stealth panel, using expensive equipment, and technicians.
At least, U.S. has these equipments, and the technicians trained to do it, and manufactures those panels herself; the countries that bought F-35, have to buy these panels from U.S. They cannot, are not allowed to manufacture these panels! Not eve IDF! So much for the special relationship.
Why ROK has chosen domestic, propriety, hard, baked on frame steal coating for KF-21. One time application during the manufacturing process, lifetime durability.
For now, F-35 is still a bit more 'stealthy' than KF-21, but they are improving the process to the point, KF-21 will not only be equally stealthy, but superior as well in the near future.
Again, twin engine are the future; they make the plane more reliable/safer to fly, in case, one engine goes bad, generates a more 'Oomph' at ultra high altitudes.
Ultra high altitudes will become far more important, with the development of microsatellites that can be launched from a fighter jet, at ultra high altitudes, like KF-21 is expected to do in the near future.
This means the domination of the space, by blanketing masses of microsatellites in the low orbit, on demand, fast, in real time, and using them to neutralize the enemy satellites above, and especially the development of advanced thermal sensor, they would be able to detect underground bunkers, nuclear submarines deep beneath the waves, and the ability/platform to guide hypersonic missiles into enemy VIPs with nuclear codes (decapitating the heads), intercepting, and detonating the enemy ICBMs once they are launched, within the enemy air space, basically turning the enemy ICBMs into air busting nuclear bombs against the enemy themselves!
So you might ask why ROK has bought F-35, while working on KF-21?
1. ROK wants to compete with F-35 for the future sales, and need F-35 for benchmarking, and giving customers a 'test drive', letting them decide which is the more cost effective stealth fighter, for themselves. The word from the grapevine is that both Saudis and UAE are just waiting for the commencement of the mass production of KF-21 block 3, with ROK designed, made engines, not subject to U.S. permission, with Turkiye, Poland, India, and potentially even UK looking at KF-21.
2. U.S. decided to sell F-35 to ROK, despite the fact that, ROK has worked with the Russians, the very same Russian companies that sold S-400 to Erdogan, because MIC decided to eliminate erstwhile competition, KF-21, nipping it in the bud, by getting ROK to commit to F-35, hoping that it would lead to canceling of KF-21.
Not only that, there are far more pilots trained on F-15 than F-35, plus far more experience, especially in actual combat; there are far less pilot bottlenecks in F-15 than F-35.
For SEAD, autonomous planes are the future, ala 'Loyal Wingman', 'Kaori-X'. Smaller, far more stealth, no risk the pilot, no pilot botteneck, which is going to be a game changer at the strategic level.
KF-21 is set to mass deploy virtual laser turret instead of traditional gattling gun by 2035; supposed to be a game changer in dog fights. ROK computer simulation shows that it could neutralize up to 20 enemy fighter jets in dog fights in a matter of a few minutes to a few seconds.
All my information regarding KF-21 came from ROK channels; they are not top secret, but one has to understand Korean; yt translation is horrible.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@millenialsmom2214 ''I usually fostered them between 3-12 months.''
Right there; you don't know as much about pitbulls as you think you do. It takes 18 months for pitbulls to mature, to show their 'true color'.
''I can see how any dog that's scared and comes from a bad environment will lash out.''
Strange, all the pitbulls engaged in fatal mauling had never been documented to have been abused. In fact, most of them had been spoilt rotten by the owners before they turned on them.
Some owners tried to raise them responsibly, using positive reinforcement, vibration collar, even so-called 'Professional Pitbull Trainers' for the problem pitbulls!
''99% of the time, people being mean to them makes them mean.''
Strange, every owner who had abused their pitbulls, who went to jail for that, not one of them had been bitten/attacked by their abused pitbulls! All those abused pitbulls, not one of them became aggressive later on.
Abusing dogs do not make them aggressive. Dogs that are aggressive are born aggressive. Only way to cure them of their natural born aggression is beating them into submission.
Professional fighting dog trainers in ROK and professional mushers in Alaska, all beat aggressive dogs relentlessly till they submit. Not one of the trainers or mushers got mauled by their own dogs. All the pitbull owners who got mauled, loved their pitbulls, many times raising them from puppyhood.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/police-found-pit-bulls-eating-11719337
1
-
@PADS62 ''Where do you live that there are so many pits that aren't safe?''
Omaha, NE. I was serious about adopting a pitbull, because so many uplifting stories about pit bulls in youtube, especially the ones from shelter. I had done my due diligence, and pitbull attack, so I knew the kind of pitbulls that are safe to adopt. Pitbulls don't mature till 1 1/2 year, then their 'true personality' emerges in full bloom. Also, pitbulls carrying tail low most times are chill, laid back, but still fun and safe. That applies to Cane Corso as well. Pitbulls carrying tails high most times are time bombs; they may be friendly now, but they can turn on you on a dime later anytime for no reason, just because they feel like it.
In Omaha, most pitbulls I saw at the shelter are not safe. Some are downright aggressive, relentlessly at all comers, even others that are not that aggressive, carry tail high and stiff all the time: time bombs. I see maybe one or up to 3 at one time pitbulls that are not aggressive, and not surprisingly those pitbulls don't stay at the shelter too long, usually gone in less than a week or at most, with 3 weeks.
Most pitbull at this shelter are long term residents; not adoptable, but only kept alive for this shelter to keep 'No Kill' status, so that they keep getting funding from pitbull advocate organizations.
So the pitbulls that used to be put down because they are not adoptable are kept alive, and as a result, bad pitbulls keep accumulating.
'' I've been into my 2 local humane societies, recently, and every pit, or pit mix was soooo sweet! I live in SW Idaho, close to the capital in Boise.''
How do the pitbulls you saw carry tails? Just because a pitbull is friendly right now doesn't mean they will not attack you later, for no reason.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/police-found-pit-bulls-eating-11719337
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Notice her tail; in the beginning, it was always down, a sign of calm dog. Later when she became a couch potato, it was still down when not active, when active the tail was horizontal, but wagging broadly, not narrowly, but rapidly. Pitbulls with the tail high most or all the time are not safe, especially when stationary.
Notice 100% of the yt videos positive about pitbulls feature pitbulls with the tail down most times. They are all calm pitbulls, even when they were skittish in the beginning.
Notice videos about pitbulls attacking people without provocation; the tails when you can see them, were almost always up, even when wagging, it was rapid, and narrow, not a friendly pitbull, but high strung pitbull.
At a local shelter, most pitbulls had the tail high and up; a few of them were obviously very aggressive, even the ones not so obviously aggressive, had their tails up all the time; very high strung. I've seen 2 or 3 pitbulls with the tail down all the time; alll calm, pitbulls. Most pitbulls at a shelter are not safe for adoption; there is a reason they were dumped by the previous owners.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Xenomorphine
''No, I'm not hyping up an F-15 which even the USAF doesn't want.'' - Xenomorphine
US Air Force would buy six more F-15EXs in 2025 under draft House bill
"Can F-15 not carry drop tanks or refuel in the air?" - Hyok Kim
''In no possible way will tankers be flying over hostile airspace.'' - Xenomorphine
"...but here, I am talking about a situation where and when all hostile air and anti-air assets as well as sensor nodes were destroyed already." - Hyok Kim
''In which case, you're going to just be using strategic bombers, regardless. In fact, every other fourth generation platform out there - up to and including the AC-130. That's not really an argument for the EX.'' - Xenomorphine
Aren't you contradicting yourself?
''F-22s and even the F-35 can carry additional fuel, too.'' - Xenomorphine
... but that would defeat the purpose of operating stealth plane. F-35 stealth 'coating' are expensive and time consuming to maintain; one has to inspect F-35 after each sortie, using expensive equipment, and specially trained technicians, and replace each soft stealth panel everytime F-35 breaks Mach; why ROK KF-21 uses 'hard' baked in stealth coating, one time application during the manufacture, lifetime warranty for the lifetime of the frame.
''So, how is that advocating for the EX as a necessity? You'll be using F-16s and all sorts of other stuff, including regular old Strike Eagles, too. Ukraine, however, has shown that SEAD isn't something which is easily achieved against near-peer opponents.'' - Xenomorphine
Didn't the Russians accomplish SEAD against the Ukrainian offensive?
"Of course, by that point, no reason for F-15 to trail behind F-22/35, since all hostile air and AD assets are neutralized, only soft/interdiction targets. No reason to slow F-22/35s down." - Hyok Kim
''But, again, what's the point? That's why the F-35 can carry an even heavier combat load than the A-10 when using external pylons.'' - Xenomorphine
.....but wouldn't that defeat the very purpose of F-35?
''My point about the trailer thing was that some are advocating for this F-15 to fly in behind stealth platforms to lob missiles around in teh initial stages of a conflict. That's a non-starter.''
I see; so what do you think about using stealth autonomous planes, ala 'Loyal Wingman' or 'Kaori-X' in the future?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Do you know why you got censored? Are you allowed to tell us? I don't believe in censorship, not as much out of 'principle', but purely pragmatic reasons. If anyone is telling the misinformation, either wittingly or unwittingly, eventually it will show later on. You cannot necessarily trust the hot doggy pilots to tell the truth, on operational/strategic point of view or the veteran tank commanders ala 'The Chieftain'. Sometimes, they don't get the big picture. Some of the panzer aces in WW2 are brilliant in tactical pictures, but utterly foolhardy at the operational/strategic/logistics level.
If anyone is being intellectually lazy, and philosophically careless about comments, then it will show in its inconsistency in reasoning later on eventually.
On war crimes, it's a moot point; both ROK and U.S. had committed war crimes, and no one cares.
On U.S. attaching conditions to aid to Israel; U.S. had insisted on ROKA to commit war crimes during Jeju uprising.
You can use MBTs in urban warfare, but it doesn't mean it's cost effective, unless one is confronted with the enemy using MBTs to defend within the city itself. Hamas has few if any MBTs to speak of. One doesn't need MBT's direct fire range to clear the light infantry in urban warfare. All one needs is breech loading mortar on armored car, for the close range direct fire, and plunging fire for extended range, or suppressive fire on the other side of the building/street.
Even if the enemy had MBTs to defend the city unless the enemy's MBT's firepower and armor is far inferior to the friendly MBTs, one doesn't gain much advantage by deploying MBTs, especially in nowadays of man portable AT missiles. MBTs going into the city against MBTs waiting in the alley for the pre-zeroed KZs with mine fields, and mortars to land on the top of the friendly MBTs: who do you think would have the advantage? Mortar shells landing on the top of the turret/hull, where the armor is the thinnest on pre-zeroed KZs. Italians had used this technique to devastating effect in N.A. No amount of fancy APS/Reactive armor would work. I consider APS/Reactive armor to be band aid solution in an age, where the enemy SPGs can launch accurate, devastating bombardment on the top of MBTs at a range, MBTs have no chance to match.
MBTs are meant to be used in big, dense formation for an operational breakthrough on enemy lines in the field; they are not meant to be used in dense city fighting. It is a waste of resource. Optimizing MBTs for use against light infantry is a penny wise, dollar foolish solution.
On the killing of the teenagers, I suspect it was a group other than Hamas, could have been a rogue, or some flunkie doing another's bidding to sabotage cease fire/peace between Israel and Hamas.
As for UN, it has no credibility. They have ignored war crimes committed by superpowers and their allies. ROK for one, has no intention of following UN mandate if it comes to a war with PRC/DPRK. U.S. had refused to sell bunker buster bombs/missiles when she got ahold of ROK plan, in a potential war with DPRK or even PRC. Why ROK had to develop its own bunker buster bombs/missiles.
Mowing the lawn was never a viable policy; it's nothing more than a band aid.
There are only two solutions; IDF maintaining military supremacy forever, and U.S. remaining #1 Superpower forever and supporting Israel forever.
Or Israel finding a way to be accepted as a legitimate ME nation by enough of the Arabs, through diplomacy, and structural change of 'Jewish Majority State'.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jimpark8379 ''I honestly have no clue WTH you're talking about re pan-Turanism but I can tell you right now what you're dreaming about will never happen.''
How do you know it will never happen?
''Every country will look out for themselves and trying to make them bend to your will is not something Korea should ever get involved in.''
Yes, the plan to be feasible has to be organic, not didactic like U.S. plans for 'liberal democracy supremacy' of the post-modern kind.
Turanism is far more organic than U.S. plans for Iraq, Iran, Saudis, Gulf states, and of course, Afghanistan. The reason for the failure of U.S. plan was due to the total disregard for the local interests and local customs/traditions.
Turanism will not be a political alliance, but a military and trade alliance, non-interference of the local autonomy, by the way, which ROK has been practicing. After all, ROK has no qualms about doing business with MBS regardless of Kashoggi.
Hyper tube trade route through C.A. will benefit all the members more or less equally, solving the transportation/logistics bottlenecks that plague pretty much all the C.A. states.
C.A. nations have abundance of natural resources, but has no ready means of exporting them to where needed in timely, economic ways, due to geography, and local politics.
Hyper tube trade route and the accompanying alliance will benefit all members. Why should they say no, given enough time and info to consider?
ROK has no qualms about doing business with Turkomanstan, and Iran as well, and that's what distinguishes ROK from U.S.
1
-
@Janoip Doesn't it need two crew to load the shells?
As for RCH 155, why is it not tracked?
Wheeled SPG is okay, even in offroad conditions, so long as it doesn't have to deal with mud, snow, and ice.
SPGs are not MBTs. They are not as tactically oriented as MBTs; they are more oriented toward operational strategy. To employ SPGs in operational as opposed to merely tactical environments, they need to be able to deploy in big numbers in wider dispersal than MBTs.
That means SPGs should be able to go offroad, even in snow, ice, and mud.
Plus the projected cost at mass production. Pzh 2000 was a no go as for value, too expensive compared to K9, even when it's superior to K9, (and that's not by much) in the present.
Would it be cost effective compared to the latest and uncoming K9s?
1
-
@Janoip ''It is more mobile, partly air-portable, and altogether easier to transport on low-loaders.''
I understand the tactical reason; SPGs are not meant to be primarily tactical weapons, but weapons at the operational level. Armored cars with heavy gun primarily are direct fire tactical weapons, kinda like poor man's MBT. Why armored cars with heavy guns were popular in Africa, but far less in other parts of the world. You don't see much snow, ice in Africa; they do see some mud, and the armored cars with heavy gun did not perform well in those conditions.
''It can be produced faster and fits the Nato/Eu planned easier exchange/cooperation together and cheaper to maintain.''
I understand the logistical reasons, but it defeats the very purpose of SPGs, especially outside Africa, weapons primarily for operational purpose, not tactical purpose.
How would you deploy wheeled SPGs offroad, in winter, or spring mud, when even tracked SPGs can struggle? If you cannot deploy SPGs offroad, it defeats the very purpose of SPGs.
''Theoretically there is also a tracked version of the Boxer, but it has not been ordered yet..''
Why not? and what does that say about the high command of NATO? In peace time, you don't have to deploy wheeled SPGs in offroad, during winter, or mud season. In war times, you wouldn't have a choice.
''KMW RCT120 remote-controlled turret armed with a 120 mm smoothbore gun with an automatic loader.''
What ROK is working is beyond that; autonomous SPG, monitored/managed, but not remote controlled by manned unit. Autonomous K9s does its own aiming, firing, driving, with the manned unit monitoring, 'recommending' targets. I'm sure ROK will work on some kind of FOE system integrated as well.
''The crew of the PzH 2000 consists of five soldiers, but it is also fully combat capable with only three soldiers. The motorman, gunner and ammunition gunner 2 must be present in all cases; the gunner and ammunition gunner 1 perform their duties only when automatic systems fail. The gunner is the commander of the gun. He supervises communications, the activities of the ammunition gunner 2, and fires the gun.''
Ok, so motorman, gunner, ammunition gunner 2, ammunition gunner 1, who's the fifth crew member?
And what do ammunition gunner 1 and 2 do?
1
-
1
-
@dice138 ''"ROK led alliance", "guaranteed sovereignty for small countries in NATO/EU"
''Just one question. Who will have the command of the ROK military if you are going to war today?''
''Wow! That's quite impressive.''
Yes, indeed, isn't it? One needs to be forward looking, not shallow, and worry about just today, that's for small minded people, like the Toshei factioin of IJM before WW2.
I'm merely extending the precept of Kanji Ishiwara of IJA (who was ignored by the idiots of Toshei, and IJN, resulting in suicidal attack on Pearl harbor, in grand strategic terms, hiding behind the idiotic lunacy, such as 'ABCD Line'.
If you focus on grand strategy, you cannot afford to worry about just today; you have to think at least 20 years, or even 50 years into the future. ROK''s GDP has grown about 432 fold since late 60's; U.S. has grown about 48 fold, at the rate, ROK GDP is expected to surpass U.S. GDP by about 2050. This is not just playing with data on paper. Per Bloomberg, ROK has become #1 in their most innovative country index; U.S. used to be #1 about 20 years ago or so, now, I think #13.
As for you loaded question, today, U.S. will have the operational control, but when ROK implements her grand strategy, most likely, after the collapse of PRC, DPRK, U.S. will no longer have the control. ROK expects PRC to collapse by 2050 as well.
Why ROK is militarizing Ulung island, and Tokdo, to prevent link up of Japan with ROC/Taiwan through Eastern Manchuria, and interested in supporting the independence movement of Okinawa, and eventual grand union with ROK, again to prevent the link up with ROC/Taiwan, post-PRC collapse, when/if U.S. leaves Okinawa.
Why ROK is also interested in supporting Ainu in Hokkaido for either independence, but more likely union with the Russian Federation, to encirclement of Japan.
With Okinawa with ROK, Hokkaido with Russia, and the vast autonomous mini-nuclear sub fleet ROK is planning to build, combined with Russian sub fleet, Japan could be blockaded at well.
ROK is planning not because she harbors any unprovoked ill will toward Japan, but because of ROK is afraid of what the idiots like Abe, and his flunkies would do, allied with ROC/Taiwan after the PRC collapse; they could completely blockade ROK on demand.
Why ROK is seeking allies outside, and independent of U.S. in case, NeoCons come to power in U.S. decided to support ROC/Taiwan, Japan alliance against ROK.
ROK would have the finance, technology, military, and incentives not just to herself, but the would be member nations along the proposed hyper tube trade route, and the most of the rest of the world to build the alliance by 2050.
Today, NATO/EU are needlessly hostile to Russia, who doesn't even have the capacity to seriously threaten Europe, other than nukes, and energy. But for nukes, there is U.S., as for energy, all Europe has to do is to drop the needless hostility against the Russian Federation, as a stooge of U.S. MIC, and NeoCons, who seek needless forever wars, for their parochial profit, at the expense of U.S. overall, and the rest of the world. Whatever bases U.S. needs to make the world trade keep going can be done, without threatening Russia.
Most members of NATO are not necessarily hostile to Russia; they just want their sovereignty guaranteed, which Russia is willing to grant, so long as NATO/EU does not threaten Russia.
NeoCons in U.S. is using the member nations' insecurity to manipulate them against Russia.
ROK is not hostile to anyone, other than DPRK, PRC under Xi jin ping, and his like, Japan under Abe, and his flunkies, and ROC/Taiwan if she tries to take Inner Mongolia, and Manchuria after the PRC collapse, and the NeoCons in U.S.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@craigthescott5074 ''actually the market decides the value of the gun not the collector.''
In the market for Thompson, the collectors are the market.
''The fact is there were many Thompson’s made more than other WW2 sub guns.''
More than Sten? More than the Burp Gun?
Besides there are far more collectors of Thompson, both for historical, and aesthetic reasons, than other subguns. As I had said before, the number of collectors with enough funds for their hobby relative to the numbers of guns available for collection decide the market value of the guns.
''The build quality is probably the biggest deciding factor in the value of the Thompson.''
Oh, I agree, as I had said before, Thompson was the best of the bunch, by a big margin when it came to build quality/workmanship/materials.
''Not many subguns were machined.''
Indeed, not only that the quality of steel was extremely poor, especially for the Soviet ones.
''Rarity also is a factor that’s why M3 grease guns are so valuable.''
That's what I had said essentially. I wonder how M3 would have performed in relation to Thompson, probably better.
''Many factors come into play, history, shootability, caliber etc. fighting quality isn’t really a factor in the sub gun market. It’s all supply and demand. There’s a low supply of class three subguns and a high demand.''
That's what I had said.
''fighting quality isn’t really a factor in the sub gun market. There’s a low supply of class three subguns and a high demand.''
Isn't that what I had said?
''And the Thompson had more than enough fighting qualities.''
For military purpose, I agree, less so for LE and Personal Defense.
''And accuracy with quality subguns has more to do with the skill of the shooter than the gun itself.''
I'm not so sure about that. In the Venturino's test, the same shooters shooting different subguns, and while Thompson was #2, it was the Soviet burp gun, the cheapest, the poorest workmanship/build quality, yet still lighter than Thompson ended up taking #1, for full auo accuracy.
Btw. for whatever it's worth, Mao's bodyguards cherished M1 carbine, and begged Mao let them use M1 over the Soviet Burp Gun!
They valued the lightweight, overall balance, and the longer range of M1 carbine over the Soviet Burp Guns' superior reliability, and superior full auto accuracy.
I found out from a book, 'Mao: The Unknown Story', the best single book on modern China.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Notice the doggie's tail. Always down even when wagging, running, etc. This is a sign of confident, friendly, stable pittiee. A pittee whose tail is mostly up, vertical, either rigid, or wagging rapidly, but narrowly, even when doing nothing is a high strung, unstable pittee. Virtually, all the pittees involved in unprovoked fatal mauling of people are high strung, unstable, even when they are 'friendly'.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
03:59 In real total war, especially when one is losing, they all resort to conscription. Personally, my belief is that all volunteer military sounds good in peace time, or when one is not engaged in existential conflict, but to prepare a nation for the optimal defense in all conditions, especially in existential conflict, should always include some amount of conscription. It could be synchronized to the state of economy or employment, so that in boom times, minimum conscription, in recession, more than usual, in depression, total war level conscription.
Also, it wouldn't be too bad to have some PMCs as well, so that some hardcore veteran troops who got sick of military crap can still offer their skills without having to engage in politicking.
04:05 Yes, all true, however, like I had said, in real, total war, especially in an existential conflict, they all resort to conscription. So it's better to learn to deal with it in peace time, how to use these poorly motivated and trained troops for maximum effectiveness in a hurry. This way, one will have more realistic assessment of the true capability of the troops, rather than relying on just paper strength.
08:23 They have been buying ROK K9s, 1st gen used, but refurbished. They like it.
09:37 On the subject of unit cohesion, and 'the will to fight', they are force multi-pliers, but they are also very over-rated.
They can be relevant in tactical realm, but far less so in the strategic realm.
Germany and Japan had very high unit cohesion, higher than U.S. U.S. still won the war, thanks to superior grand strategy, and competent enough operational strategy, and far superior logistics.
You do not go to war to win battles, you fight battles to win wars.
09:48 Oh, yes! I regard the Finns the best general purpose conscript troops in the world. During WW2, after the Finns switched the side, they ended up fighting the Germans, who slightly outnumbered the Finns, and most definitely outgunned the Finns, yet the Finns still managed to beat the Germans. Finns excel in small unit tactics, individual initiative, resourcefulness, tenacity.
11:00 Oh, I don't know about that one. Ireland had an excellent neutral strategy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_neutrality_during_World_War_II#Policy
... and of course, the Swiss as well.
13:28 Let's get real. If NATO launched a naval blockade of Russian shipping, that would mean a nuclear war. Whether Sweden joined the naval blockade against Russia would be a moot point.
14:39 Excellent point. Objective as well. It's not in the interest of Sweden to go for an offensive operation against Russian Federation, with or without NATO.
15:06 Please, let's be objective on this one. I do agree that Russia had not and has not been an innocent on this one.
On the other hand, Russia had been a victim of unprovoked invasions by many throughout history as well.
First, the Mongols, then came others.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish%E2%80%93Novgorodian_wars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_on_the_Ice
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_invasion_of_Russia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_invasion_of_Russia
16:37 Yes, I heard about that one. So has ROK.
'' In the Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercise, the world’s largest international maritime exercise, South Korea’s existing submarines have demonstrated their capacity to successfully detect and destroy nuclear-powered submarines, including the most advanced U.S. Ohio-class SSBNs.''
https://www.nbr.org/publication/a-race-for-nuclear-powered-submarines-on-the-korean-peninsula/
19:02 Not so fast. There is Erdogan, the Turkish strongman objects. He wants Sweden and Finland to kick out PKK and their affiliates, and no more embargoes of any kind against Turkey. Turkey has a veto power. My bet is Erdogan is looking for a deal, either from U.S., F-35 sales, or who knows what Putin has to offer if Erdogan blocks Finland, Sweden?
https://news.yahoo.com/erdogan-sweden-finlands-nato-bid-152307023.html
Turkey is also very dependent on Russian imports.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34973181#:~:text=Turkey%20relies%20almost%20entirely%20on%20imports%20for%20its,to%20Turkey%2C%20representing%2056%25%20of%20its%20total%20consumption.
I think you might want to take a look at a book that is considered 'the Bible' of Putin, Russian top elite, and military.
'Foundation of Geopolitics'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Dugin
Btw. the book keeps getting updated.
I was shocked how prescient the book was in following the current deal with Ukraine.
Based on my understanding of the strategy laid out in the book, and what's going on in current situation in Ukraine,
the main target is not military, but financial/economic, Ukraine is really more of a bait/side show.
Russian aim is basically to damage or even dismantling of NATO/EU, by provoking internal feuds among member states, and between U.S. and NATO/EU, primarily by weaponizing energy as the vector.
If U.S. and NATO/EU keep supporting Ukraine at the rate they do now, it will cause at least financial if not economic collapse of the West. In that case, no more support for Ukraine, who will be done in a few months, without much fighting.
https://invezz.com/news/2022/05/16/russian-ruble-worlds-best-performing-currency-this-year/
The current sanction against Russian federation reminds me of the Continental Blockade imposed by Napoleon against Britain, which eventually led to the fall of Napoleon, and guess who gets to play the Napoleon this time, not Putin, but the West!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_System
Right now, this sanction is causing a two tier oil price market, one for the West, and the other for the rest of the world.
The West gets to pay far higher price for the oil, the rest of the world pay far lower, which will put the West at a severe economic disadvantage, the longer the sanction lasts.
OPEC, Venezuela will prioritize selling/overcharging oil to the West, that means Russian Federation will dominate the oil market for the rest of the world. Russia will increase oil/gas export to the rest of the world to compensate the coming loss from the West, just like British had done, increasing the trade outside Europe to the rest of the world during the Continental blockade imposed by Napoleon, and this led to severe economic problems for some members of the Napoleonic coalition, notably, Portugal and Russia, who decided to abandon the blockade, and this led to Napoleon's Peninsular campaign, and the invasion of Russia, the twin wars that ended up costing Napoleon's empire.
One can speculate the similar outcome for the West, and I think this is the real battle that matters, not the sideshow that's going on in Ukraine, or whether Sweden and Finland get to join NATO or not.
Here are the signs.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/russia-jumps-4th-position-oil-supplier-india-tanker-data-2022-05-17/
https://www.msn.com/en-in/money/topstories/exclusive-india-to-approach-russia-for-concessions-on-sunflower-oil-imports/ar-AAX4Kdc?ocid=uxbndlbing
Dugin's wildest dream about to come true.
''Everyone who follows him, including me, anticipated when the sanctions were announced that he’d be pleased by them. Just yesterday, for example, amid news about the internet being managed, he came out and said, “Oh, this is fantastic. This is great.” I think he’s probably in a stronger position now. I don’t think that you’re going to see — and this is one criticism of the sanctions — you’re not going to see everybody turn on Putin for this reason. In many cases you’re probably going to see them rally in defiance and embrace a new identity. That will be the one way that they can maintain some dignity in the face of some severe economic conditions. So that will strengthen him. And it will strengthen this cause: of creating this island, an island of Russia. What will happen with Traditionalists in the future? It’s ultimately very tied up with individuals, because this is not a mass movement.''
https://jacobinmag.com/2022/03/aleksandr-dugin-putinism-reactionary-prophet-russian-ultranationalism-traditionalism
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us-aims-to-cripple-russian-oil-industry-officials-say/ar-AAXufHA?ocid=uxbndlbing
https://bigworldtale.com/world-news/south-korea-shamed-for-buying-bargain-russian-oil-oil-tanker-data-revelation/
Also, if this sanction continues, and Putin's demand to be paid in rubles works, and so far it's working splendidly, it will do serious damage to USD as the last, only, exclusive reserve currency of the world to the point, it will become a co-reserve currency along with rubles in the rest of the world sans EU/NATO.
This means U.S. can no longer borrow money at cheap rates from others, corollary is that Russian Federation can borrow money that much cheaper. It will help Russian Federation financially/economically, while damaging U.S. economically and financially.
Also, the food crisis, Ukraine will be the biggest loser on this one, Russia the biggest winner.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us-accuses-russia-of-holding-the-worlds-food-supply-hostage-it-comes-as-experts-warn-that-cyber-attacks-could-impact-global-supply-chains/ar-AAXv3LA?ocid=uxbndlbing
Russian Federation is slowly choking the economic foundation of the West, which could lead to dismantle of NATO/EU.
I think this is what Putin and Dugin really may have had in mind, not the sideshow tactical razzle dazzle in Ukraine.
Biden is nuts if he thinks he can get others to ban Russian oil.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/597882-here-are-the-countries-that-import-the-most-russian-oil/
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@caryrevels6584 I see so many videos of dogs rescued after being abused/neglected; not one of them was aggressive (I'm not talking about 'fear-aggression', but real on the prowl aggression) when rescued. Either scared, docile, or even friendly!
Common sense in human sense does not apply to dogs; dogs are not people. They don't think like people.
There are many people who got mauled by their pitbulls; not one of them had been documented to have abused their dogs. In fact, many of them had been documented to have spoilt them rotten, a few even tried to raise them responsibly, using every methods, positive reinforcement, vibration collar, special last problem Pitbull dog trainer, etc.
Then, there are pitbull owners who did abuse their dogs; not one of them got mauled! Their owners went to jail.
So how is that, every pitubull owner who got mauled, never abused the dogs, but raised them with loving care, and every pitbull owner who did go to jail for abusing the dogs, not one of them got mauled by their dogs, and those dogs who got abused? Not one of them was aggressive!
1
-
1
-
ATACM for long range strike into Russian territory?
Don't Zircons have far longer range than ATACM? Russia is coming out versions of Zircon to be fired from mobile land platform.
Yes, 10 years shelf-life sounds about right; I believe U.S. had stopped using corrosive explosives a long ago if she had ever had. Corrosive explosives have indefinite shelf-life, or at least 100 years, provided they are stored in proper, humidity controlled, and non-high heat climate, and more reliable ignition in cold weather.
Non-corrosives have at least,10 years shelf-life, provided it's stored properly, but less reliable ignition in cold weather.
Italians had already come up with the battle plan to counter the deep battle in North Africa: Defense in Depth into a corridor, a false weak point. They used it successfully, especially against the R.A. They only quit when they had run out of ammo, and they accomplished it when the R.A. had the virtual air supremacy no less.
Joint Missile program based on synergy? Sounds like F-35, with A, B, and C. It didn't work, either; 'B' should not have even been born; F you, James Mathis.
Yes, low maintenance is a very important factor in gaining, and maintaining air superiority, especially in a total war, unlike initial SEAD. Why F-35 is a failure, especially 'B'.
As for pilot bottleneck problem, in Kalkin Gol, IJA AF fought very well against the Red AF, very high kill ratio, especially initially, but the Soviet simply had more planes, even if inferior, with inferior pilots overall. They simply did, 'Ground and Pound', wearing IJA AF down, especially due to pilot fatigue, forcing the IJA AF to withdraw, with the air cover as well.
This could/should be addressed with the introduction of A.I. Pilot robots in the future.
Trump was right to withdraw the treaty whether Putin decided to violate the treaty or not.
INS by itself, without the satellite correction, is for short range only. Why defending the Space and dominating it should be the highest priority: U.S. needs to re-introduce X-15 in more advanced form: Forget NGAD for now.
Can ATACM attack the enemy SPGs successfully if they employ, 'Shoot and scoot'? For far shorter than 5 minutes, the enemy SPGs can scoot far more than 25 meters.
I think the ability to navigate and home in on the moving target is far more important than just mere maximum speed, when even at max speed, ATACM is very unlikely to take the SPGs employing, 'Shoot and Scoot'.
1
-
1
-
''A war in the straits will involve not only China and Taiwan, but also the USA, Japan, South Korea, Philippines, and other possible players in the region.''
Not necessarily. ROK wouldn't have an incentive.
1. PRC fails; no reason for ROK to intervene.
2. PRC succeeds, and occupies Taiwan; USN simply could drop the mines around Taiwan. PRC would have to air suppy the PRC garrison, very expensive proposition; it would be PRC's 'Vietnam'/'Afghanistan', for little cost to U.S.
This could lead to the collapse of CCP altogether, eventually, and DPRK as well. ROK could simply move in take NK, Manchuria, and Inner Mongolia, with no potential competitor like ROC around.
Why on earth would ROK intervene?
For Japan, the similar scenarios, with the addition of in case of the collapse of ROC in Taiwan, the most talented engineers and the capital of ROC would come to Japan. Why on earth would Japan intervene?
''Philippines, ....'''
Not strong enough for offensive operation against PRC, even with others.
''...and other possible players in the region.''
They would have no interest in getting involved in intra-Sino conflict.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@andrewmcalister3462 ''Well, you lose some deck space with twin towers.''
True, but also has optimal placement for navigation, surveillance radar operation and optimal for air traffic operation, and provides extra redundancy, in case, one get disabled. Redundancy is more important especially if you have only one aircraft carrier.
''However, it is worth noting the QE class is powered by 2 gas turbines, and the RN found that it could save internal space by routing the exhaust trunks to 2 islands separately, than through a single island. Both the US and French carriers are nuclear powered, so don't have the same exhaust issue.''
I see; I realize now I was looking at previous French aircraft carrier they were going to build, PA2, instead of PA-NG. The one ROKN is going to build has not been finalized yet, other than twin tower arrangement. Some say it will be bigger than QE, but based on K22 reactors of the PA-NG, which will use low civilian grade uranium, not to run afoul of any nuclear treaties, but also combined with ROK mini-modular nuclear reactor design as well.
Well, USN has more than enough aircraft carriers: not as much need for redundancy.
1
-
Big guns vs. More Missiles
Sounds like battleships vs. aircraft carriers back in the day long before WW2.
Hadn't the senior USN officers even cheated their own tests and court martial Billy Mitchell to defend their favorite toys?
So much for experience and wisdom. Cappy is being too kind on this one: This should have been no brainer! Thank goodness, at least ROKN Senior leadership didn't even think of building a battleship. Subs were to be the foundation of the ROKN by that point.
However, ROK MC had made the same mistake that USMC has made, that I think is now being corrected by ROKN. ROK MC is not to have the light carriers of their own, with fixed wing stealth planes. No more F-35B that were planned to be purchased, instead ROKN is going to have a medium aircraft carrier with the naval version of KF-21, KF-21N. There is no reason why MC should have fixed wing stealth planes for CAS during amphibious assault: Apache is good enough. Especially when F-35B is the least effective of the three for air superiority, CAS, the most expensive, and the least reliable of the A, B, C.
It's not the mission of USMC to contest air superiority: That is the mission for USAF/USN Aviation.
Too bad Boorda committed suicide. Especially when Zumwaldt himself had authorized it to many others as well in public. I agree with Boorda, and so does ROKN; they are going to build at least one to as many as 3 arsenal ships by late 20s. Missile per missile, it's about the cost of as low as 0.24% of Zumwaldt, and yes, those missile can be, and should be launched as many, asap, as possible, with no bottlenecks.
If hypersonic missile is the future, then arsenal ship should be no brainer. Arsenal ships can be eventually even become unmanned, even autonomous. Cheap, optimally effective, optimally efficient, with low maintenance, and very little risk to human crew, less need for pilots, maintenance crew, and the planes, what's not to like?
Not good for MIC, though, since they wouldn't have the fat profit margin, and not good for career USN officers, either, since the minimum need for personnel to operate arsenal ships.
As for stealth design for the littoral combat ship purpose, for close in shore bombardment, wouldn't it be vulnerable to enemy artillery bombardment as well as the enemy CAS, cruise missile strike?
There's a saying, ''Ship is a fool to fight the fort.'' Of course, with air supremacy, this would not be as much of an issue. Still, the risk is there; why risk a very expensive hardware when you don't have to. With air supremacy, not much need for the stealth design. Without air supremacy, stealth design wouldn't do much good.
There's a reason why the Egyptian navy adopted K9.
Egyptian Navy to get K9 howitzers.
Could X-band radar detect hypersonic stealth missile in time to take defensive measure?
Could AN/SQS 60 detect the supercavitating torpedo in time for defensive measures, at least the Russian version, VA-111 Shkval?
Report: South Korea Is Developing a Super Torpedo That Could Attack at 200 Knots
ROK version is going to be more advanced than the Russian version; it will be quieter, till it gets to its 'No Miss' zone, longer ranged (electric, with variable speed), and smarter (it would maneuver and track the target with sonar stealth coating, and sonar of its own)
Btw. USN stopped the development of AN/SQS 62 and adopted Thales sonar instead, due to the reliability problem; does AN/SQS 60 suffer the similar problem?
ROKN subs have been very successful in RIMPAC.
Yes, hypersonic missiles are the future, especially hypersonic cruise missiles. With the advances in sensors from satellites, especially ground penetrating radars, the enemy silo-based ICBMs and even SLBMs could be located/targeted, and neutralized. Hypersonic cruise missiles could be used to disable the enemy ICBMs and SLBMs, and hypersonic gliding missiles could be used to finish/detonate the disabled, but still in tact ICBMs and SLBMs, or the enemy surrenders, whichever is sooner.
I don't think the hypersonic missiles for Zumwaldt are hypersonic cruise missiles, but hypersonic gliding missiles.
Still, arsenal ships would provide far better bang for the buck, up to 500 hypersonic missiles for the price of about 500 million vs. 12 hypersonic missiles for Zumwaldt, for the price of about 5 billion, and no human crew vs. up to 148 crew?
1
-
1
-
1
-
03:51 PRC is notorious for playing 'spec' game; one of their so-called 'anti-Ship ballistic missile' did not actually have physical test to determine the range; it was based on the missile lying flat on the platform on the ground, and igniting the motor, and how long the motor ran at what precalculated spec!
04:32 You could apply similar logic; how do you think U.S. would react if either Russia or PRC wanted to recruit either Canada or Mexico as an ally so that they could place hypersonic missiles targeting D.C. NYC, NASA/Houston, and oil production in the Gulf coast?
06:28 The bottleneck in BVR is the radar; PRC has notoriously sucky radar. why they had gotten their asses kicked by Royal Thai AF Griffens.
07:56 Stealth is more than just air frame; it's the soft panel attached to the air frame. This needs to be inspected using expensive equipment by trained technicians after every sortie, and needs to be replaced every time the plane hits Mach. Not only that only U.S. has the technology to manufacture the panels. No other countries are allowed to manufacture the panels, not even Israel, UK. Why ROK is investing in KF-21, with hard coat stealth instead of soft panel stealth.
19:20 I've read in ROK Military channel that WS-10 has the downtime rate of up to 90%.
20:12 The problem is U.S. won't allow the partners/customers to manufacture the soft panels themselves. They have to be imported from U.S. Those panels are not very robust; F-35 has to be inspected after each sortie, and the panel replaced after hitting Mach each time, using expensive equipment, and special technicians.
...and in the Pacific there's no facility for major repairs of F-35, other than Japan, and Australia. Also, U.S. won't allow the partners/customers to even modify their F-35s for domestic purpose. So ROK will have to fly their F-35s all the way to either U.S. or Australia for major repair/overhauls every few years! One of many reasons why ROK is working on KF-21.
Didn't the Indians spot the supposedly stealth PRC fighter jet on their radar?
1
-
Ver objective, informative, and entertaining: I am impressed.
Yes, CIA overthrowing the National Front in Iran was penny wise, dollar foolish.
Sweden, Finland will not join NATO. In fact, EU might not exist in a few years: There's no economically sustainable alternative to Russian gas and oil for EU. People are getting sidetracked by grand strategically irrelevant events within Ukraine: No matter how many battles Ukraine wins, it will not change energy driven strategic calculus. EU will end sanctions, and abandon Ukraine.
Erdogan is a Rug merchant extraordinary. Ultra-cunning. He has a grand ambition of building Pan-Turkish alliance, but no grand strategy, very inept in macroeconomic management.
ROK has had issues with his antics, but still committed to helping, for Turkiye will become a vital asset when ROK builds Pan-Turanian alliance, along with Visegrad group/V4. ROK wants to build a hyperloop trade route through Central Asia after PRC collapse by 2050.
ROK is expected to surpass U.S. in GDP by 2050 (ROK GDP has grown about 458-fold since 1960: U.S. about 48-fold) In Bloomberg, innovative country index, U.S. has fallen from #1 to #13 in about 20 years or so: ROK has risen from who knows how low to #1.
ROK is also working on microsatellite technology that can be launched from KF-21, that can see through waves to track any submarines below, enemy satellites above, virtual laser turret, ready for mass deployment for KF-21 block 3 and later, by 2035, that works like a light saber from 'Star Wars', auto tracking, slicing dicing the hostile target using BVR, FOEI, pilot just activates the system when needed. ROK computer simulation shows a single KF-21 equipped with VLT top and bottom can neutralize 20 F-35s within a few minutes.
Both Saudis and UAE send VIP observers to KF-21 testing events: The word is that they will buy massive number of KF-21 block 3 and later instead of F-35.
British abandoned F-35, and now wants to work with ROK regarding KF-21: Poles wants to work with ROK regarding K3PL tanks, a rail gun based tank. ROK is to build totally autonomous battle droid version of K9 SPG by 2040.
ROK has just perfected EV charging technology that can recharge from 0% to 100% under 1 minute, with battery capacity as twice as big as the best in today, a few months ago: ROK is betting big in auto factories in Russia for export to Europe after the sanction ends, also big in EV battery production in Hungary for export to Europe as well.
ROKN is building naval architecture technology that can produce massive number of autonomous mini-nuclear stealth subs in a hurry.
In the meantime, U.S. is wasting her resources in serial failed wars, and woke driven wasteful social programs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's not very emotional for me; just another war. What's the big deal?
Institute for the study of war is a NeoCon flunkie/shill/front; they had supported the failed wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now in Ukraine. Not a very credible source. They also claimed that Russia was running out of missiles about a month ago: Yeah, right! It is Ukraine that is running out of missiles/shells.
The founder, Kimberly Kagan had claimed that the surge was working in Iraq and would work in Afghanistan as well.
Joh Kirby had claimed that Russia was running out of precision missiles about a year ago as well.
Bibi wants to purchase F-22: Out of touch with reality.
What about their ATMOS SPG? Is there a reason why IDF is not deploying them?
Just because the info comes from multiple does not necessarily mean it's vetted. They could be copying the same information from each other.
There is no decisive victory as far the Palestinian issue is concerned; Israel will never win sustainable, 'Warm Peace', not based on military supremacy, and supported by whoever will happen to be #1 Superpower.
The only sustainable peace will be, through, 'Warm', not 'Cold' peace based on the acceptance of Israel as a legitimate ME nation.
It's always too late: Ask the Native Hawaiians, and the Native Americans.
You can search at yt, for the video, ''이제 가상이 아닌 현실! (주)한화 레이저의 차원이 다른 클라쓰~ 🤜ㅣ한화잇슈#17 (주)한화 소형 레이저 무기''
Hanhwa developed lasers to detonate IEDs, mines, etc, in real time, on demand. Hanhwha claims that it's at the forefront of laser technology for military applications. By 2035, the lasers will be far more powerful, than todays. VLT should be able to 'slice and dice' the enemy planes at aerial version of ECQB in real time, on demand, and detonate the bombs/missiles carried by the enemy plane at the aerial version of CQB, and be able to damage the enemy sensors/radars/fuel tanks at further distance than aerial version of CQB.
Hahwha demonstrates on the video, detonating the missiles and bombs up to 300 meters in real time, on demand, up to 1000m. It will be a lot longer by 2035. It also features, man portable version of laser guns to be carried by the infantry, to damage the enemy MBTs, by detonating the reactive armor prematurely to soften the enemy MBTs for further man portable AT missile attack, and to damage the enemy MBT's passive/active defense systems, by damaging the sensors, and their situational awareness, such as 'Iron Vision', in urban combat.
You can search for ''Watch a robot run effortlessly across sand'' at yt; I think they are working on battle droids platform.
You can google, Raibo robot as well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@purpleslog ''hyperICBMs and shore attack hyper cruise missiles are/will be the counter to that.''
ICBM ballistic path are predictable for the enemy to intercept and they are BIG, easy to hit and detonate the warhead, within U.S. airspace, turning it into air busting nuclear bomb against U.S.
They are also slow at the initial stage. In the future, the enemy satellites could see those Silos through advanced sensor, even before the launch.
The enemy hypersonic missiles could be stealth as well, could turn off the engine after gaining the maximum speed, making it stealth not just on radars, but also, infrared, and sound as well.
It can also be guided tactically, not just strategically, avoiding the oncoming U.S. missiles; that technology has already been available for years.
Missile Silos are dead ends.
1
-
@trolleriffic Then why had they established Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty to begin with? Because it wouldn't work, or because it would work, too well?
Not only that the technology has progressed even further since 70s to make ABM even more effective. They are not limited to intercept incoming ICBMs like in the 70s.
They could intercept them during the space flight portion, making ABMs even more effective than in the 70s.
In the future, with the advance of hypersonic stealth missiles, and massive number of autonomous mini-nuclear subs, they could dash to shore, and fire those missiles against the Silos in the early launch stage, where ICBMs would be big, slow targets, easy to intercept, and detonate those warheads within U.S. airspace, turning them into air busting nuclear bombs against U.S.
Also, those ICBMs have predictable flight path; they don't maneuver. No matter how fast in the later portion of the flight, their path would be predictable, easy to intercept by advancing hypersonic guidance technology.
With advances in sensors, and satellites could see those silos even before the launch, and attack those silos even before the lift off.
Silos are dead ends.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
0219 Great point, one of the biggest flaws in the Japanese grand strategy, but it wasn’t the only one, but there were bigger flaws, that is, regarding the differences regarding China for differing Japanese factions.
However, how would have conquering China have solved the Japanese oil, rubber problem/
Hadn’t Japan had already enough iron ores and coal in Manchuria and Korea/
0252 On Marco Polo, there is more than meets the eyes. Not just ‘two’ sides, but there were 2 more, one CCP, and the Soviets. CCP instigated Marco Polo on the instruction from the Soviets.
Mao The Unknown Story does a marvelous job on this, and many others. It really opened my eyes, and my disdain for Oxies and Cambies deepend.
Yes, KMT and many in IJA wanted to limit the fighting, but some ‘tactical’ crowd in IJA and CCP, and their moles within KMT, plus the Soviet, the puppet master of CCP back then wanted the fighting to spread.
0500 Thanks for the info on the lack of shipping. I wasn’t aware of that info contributing to the resource problem for Japan.
0600 Outstanding points, the root cause. Sadly, this point has been long ignored by U.S. Military. Some/many in U.S. military, and their civilian allies want less civilian oversight, using Vietnam as the ‘proof’.
0750 Excellent point, basically IJN was engaging in ‘Keeping up with Joneses’ mentality, rather than objective assessment of Optimal Japanese Interest. IJN was for IJN’s optimal interest, not Japan. Actually, despite stereotype, IJA was more attuned to optimal Japanese interest, as a group other than some of the ‘tactical crowd’ stationed at China, and Toshei faction as a group.
Also, the civilians did make a grand strategic mistake in the Siberian intervention. They should have supported IJA fully, and annexed the Soviet Far East, and form a buffer state in the region, no brainer, the Soviet was the true existential threat to Japan. This ended up hurting their credibility later on in the 30s.
0820 Great points overall, but some of these were justified. Good risk/reward.
1038 I think you’re relying on sources engaging in hyperliteralism. Yes, many with IJN did say it, but did they really believe it or were they engaging in PR façade based on groupthink as pointed out by USN in later analysis/
People say things in public to present false façade for PR purpose while hiding their real agenda.
IJN decided that the optimal policy for IJN to claim the national resources was to go to war, primarily using its own assets to justify its existence, but they could not say that, could they/
War brings out opportunities for younger, lower level officers to show their mettle/usefulness, and the opportunity to rise, absent in peace. They have a tendency to rationalize the decision to go to war, but while hiding behind the façade of flag waving/patriotism/existential threat.
U.S. is no different in that regard. I’ve seen and heard the same sentiment before.
1140 Another excellent point, but the civilians had lost credibility by abandoning the Siberian expedition too prematurely, especially when it was really going well, and for the ‘wrong’ reasons, such as too much sensitivity to the foreign, hypocritical, pseudo democratic ideals.
1314 All great points, but let me add another one. ‘’When going gets tough, the tough get going.’’ You had already said about why Austrians went for Waldheim, the same for the Japanese, and the same for U.S.
1340 I disagree on this one. I think you’re being hyper literal and confusing the excuse/façade/rationalization people use with the real underlying reasons.
Japan had another alternative for self-sufficiency. The Soviet Union. By destroying the Soviet Union, she would have solved resource problems, and eliminate the only existential threat in one go, with no need for a powerful blue water navy, no need to go to offensive war against U.S., China, and the rest of the Euro Colonials, plus a powerful ally, Germany, with enough space for a buffer state or two between.
This was done in order to justify/rationalize the existence of a powerful blue water navy, for IJN’s benefit, of course. It wasn’t just between IJA and IJN, but also within IJA, the Toshei faction, and Kodosha faction. Toshei allied with IJN in order to retain the control of IJA from Kodosha, kinda similar to what USN did with USMC against U.S. Army, and to a lesser extent USAF.
1507 Sorry on this one, your source is dead wrong. Hakagure was written by a clerk with no battle experience, not even the second, third hand knowledge of war, engaging in false nostalgia. The real samurais during Sengaku era were extremely calculating to a fault, One famous samurai had changed his masters 7 times. Why I disdain Oxies and Cambies, The full blown sophistries. Of course, both IJA and IJN were extremely calculating, irrational maybe, but calculating nevertherless. Kinda similar to some Americans engaging in false nostalgia regarding the Wild, Old West, and the cowboys.
I’d say Karl May had done better job than Kakagure.
Hagakure - Wikipedia
Karl May - Wikipedia
Akechi Mitsuhide - Wikipedia
As for IJA’s tendency for escalation, in U.S. they call it doubling down. U.S. Military is no better, but only kept under control because of the civilian oversight, sans that, U.S. Military would be no better than IJA.
Why Macarthur got sacked, and rightly so.
Douglas MacArthur - Wikipedia
1600 You’re relying on the source engaging in hyperliteralism, resulting in false conclusion. Nagano was trying to rationalize the existence of the powerful, blue water navy, hiding behind the façade of national survival.
1818 Another reason why I disdain Oxie and Cambie. Those are merely excuses/rationalization/façade, not the real reasons. Tojo didn’t want to lose the control of IJA to Kodosha. That was the real reason. Like I has said before, parochial, not national.
1849 So Tojo WAS calculating. Doesn’t’ this contradict what you had said earlier/
2020 Another Cambie. Even if Japan had won the victory against U.S. China, and the Euro Colonials, she still would have to contend with the Soviets, who WAS the real existential threat. Your Cambie source is implying the Japan had not noticed it. Really/
2040 Sugiyama was engaging in PR, not objective analysis. How could he have not failed to notice the looming Soviet threat/
2130 The Tsushima analogy does not apply. Japan had the logistical advantage over the Baltic fleet, a long way from home, the crew tired. IJN at home base with no logistical difficulties, plus the tacit support of the ‘West’ against Russia. And they knew exactly where the Baltic fleet had to pass through, nice bottleneck for ambush from home team.
2146 I disagree. That was the rationale ‘the tactical crowd’ and Toshei faction sold to retain the control of IJA from Kodosha, with the intrigue of CCP and the Soviets on their behalf.
It’s a little more complicated than the conclusion of the video. While I do strongly agree that the lack of the civilian oversight was the main root cause. There were more.
The lack of oversight still had existed during the Siberian expedition. So how do you explain IJA giving up on expedition due to the civilian oppositioin/
It was due to the civilians losing the credibility in front of the public when IJA was actually right in grand strategy. That loss of credibility emboldened the military stronger than it should have, and weakened the civilian authority weaker than it should have.
Japan was not a dictatorship, or even an oligarchy, despite the popular stereotypes. Japan was a combination of military anarchy, plutocratic oligarchy, and limited pseudo democracy.
The military did not have the blanket power. As had been noted, they were not a unifying block, but a loose alliance of differing factions, fighting for public approval, and trying to justify each branch’s existence.
That Japan had to go to war to accomplish the economic autarky is not in dispute, but the reason why Japan went to war against U.S. has little to do with it. She chose to go to war against U.S. for parochial interest of IJN, and Toshei faction in the IJA.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
05:42 One big advantage of wire guided missile is jam proof against PPS. As PPS becomes more prolific, this will become more important. One AT tactic that I envision is to use net like projectile to immobilize APS of the latest MBTs, and use wire guided AT missile to attack the tank.
Edit: One contraception I envision is to use hybrid WGM. An aimer, and a local remote control firing unit, could be wired, or wireless. The aimer will aim the optical control unit, and once the sight acquired, will send the signal to the remote controlled firing unit, once the AT missile is fired, the aimer will continue to aim to the remote control unit which will continue to guide the missile through the aimer, but enough distance away from the location the missile was fired.
11:19 How the Germans were so successful with Panzer III and IV against the vaunted T-34.
11:35 It is, except in mountainous terrain: Like they, up in the mountains, ounce equals a pound. Why ROK went K2 and K2 is the contender for Norway, along with the latest Leopard. M1 is not even in the running. Btw. K2 already beat Leopard in Oman, when it came to tactical mobility, the news I hear is it is doing even better in Norway.
13:26 Why MUM-T is the future.
M1 is still a great tank. I think it is the best tank design for U.S. or any country that doesn't have to import oil, and especially if allowed to use uranium depleted armor, mostly flat terrain, and the technological capacity to build/maintain gas turbine engines. ROK still uses local production, and sensor upgraded version, but diesel instead of gas turbine, K1 as the backbone of the armored units, K2 being used as screening/probing tip, and T-80 used as a recon in force element.
Why the countries that have adopted it are primarily OPEC members and/or at least have flat terrain, with the exception of ROC.
1
-
@ricardoospina5970 ''Well that's exactly how Stugna P works the targeting person can be 50 meters away.''
Well, the Ukrainians seem to be in the right direction. Other idea would be installing some kind of INS sensor on the missile itself, with the target being 'locked' by the operator, and once 'locked', the missile will become a sort of 'cruise' missile, adjusting based on the target moving, without operator input, kinda like Nlaw.
Laser beam riding on the other hand, can be neutralized by PPS.
''Well the Germans where successful with Panzer 1 and Panzer II against the French tanks which where clearly superior, and there where more French tanks.''
Indeed, but the Germans had superior tactical doctrine, and superior leadership.
Just like during Barbarossa. Also, most French tanks were not radio equipped.
1
-
1
-
@cobrachannel100 ''Soviets had insane manufacturing and manpower pool. Russia does not. So whatever historical equivalents drive your conclusions, might be wrong. The bottom line is Russia does not have the hardware or manpower.''
Hold a second here. Both 'Winter War' and 'Khalkin Gol' had taken place barely 7 years after the first 5 year plan!
What is commonly touted as the achievement of 5 year plan was yet to be realized for decades to come. In fact, the Soviet Union was not an industrial powerhouse throughout WW2.
Without Lend Lease from U.S. and U.K., throughout WW2, the Red Army would not have had the 'legs' for follow ups to drive the Germans. Yes, the Red Army could have defeated the Germans in defensive battles, and even that was in doubt, without Lend Lease from U.S., but in an offensive battles, even if the Red Army had defeated the Germans, the Red Army could not have achieved the breakthrough, without breakthrough, there would have been no point fighting an offensive battle in the first place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#US_deliveries_to_the_Soviet_Union
The Red Army barely 7 years after the 5 year plan with no Lend Lease from U.S. and U.K. DID NOT have 'insane' manufacturing capacity. The Red Army had had 'enough' manufacturing capacity to pick on Fins, or a very small segment of IJA, not even the entire Kwantung Army, but only 20,000! The entire Kwantung Army numbered some 300,000 crack troops. Had IJA decided to go to war against the Soviet Union, that would have meant the Red Army fighting both Kwantung Army, and CEA, Chinese Expeditionary Army, numbering some 1 million, total 1.7 million, not just 20,000. For IJA, 'Khalkin Gol' was a minor sideshow.
The entire Finland military was equivalent to the entire Kwantung Army, but far less tanks, artillery, airplanes, and shells, meaning the Red Army didn't have enough manufacturing capacity to defeat the entire Kwantung Army in an offensive war, much less CEA and Kwantung Army.
True the Red Army could have fought a defensive war, but not offensive wars like 'Winter War', the Red Army simply didn't have the equipment, in fact, not even enough artillery shells, which were a big component of Lend Lease, worth some 180 billion in today's money. Without that aid, the Red Army would not have had enough weapons to defeat Germany in an offensive war. U.S. made the Soviet Union a super power!
Another word, the true strength of the Red Army was like Russian Federation today. Now, this begs a question. How has the Russian Federation performed so far against Ukraine, relative to the Red Army against Finns, and the Japanese in 'Khalkin Gol'?
Far better, Now keep this in mind, Ukraine is far bigger than Finland, both population, and industry wise, yet performed far less impressively than the Finns, or the IJA in 'Khalkin Gol'.
After all, the Russian Federation did succeed in capturing important border regions of Ukraine, unlike the Red Army in the initial phase in 'Winter War', and 'Khalkin Gol'.
''Dudes are decimated and have no desire to fight. They been recruiting troops from Syria, asking China for help, bringing in reenforcements from Georgia fake republics and other "peacekeeping" missions.''
...and Ukraine does? If so, then why has Zelenski forbidden Ukrainian men up to 60 from leaving the country?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2022/02/25/russia-invasion-ukraine-bans-male-citizens-leaving/6936471001/
Now, that was not the case with the Finns, or even UPA.
This means the stamina, will to fight for Ukraine is a lot weaker than the Finns, and UPA.
''This Russian army has been corrupted and most of the stuff stolen and sold. Leadership is a joke, doctrine a joke too.''
... and Ukraine military is not corrupt?
https://ukrkolo.com/corruption-gnaws-at-ukraines-military/
https://www.txtreport.com/news/2022-04-01-vladimir-zelensky-appeals-to-generals-for-treason---russia.SkecSVVQ5.html
This most definitely was not the case with both the Finns and IJA in 'Khalkin Gol'.
... and what about Zelensky himself, and of course, his family and friends?
https://helenaglass.net/tag/zelensky-pandora-papers/
''If Ukraine is supplied by the West with everything they are asking for, ...''
... and why do you think the West should supply Ukraine with everything they're asking for?
''...they will crush this Russian army and Russia will have to sue for peace.''
What if Russian Federation does not sue for peace?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War
''At this point though, I wouldnt predict anything.''
Ukraine is forbidding men up to 60 from leaving to fight the Russian Federation, meaning there's a large number of Ukrainian men who do not want to fight, but to leave to live. That's not a prediction but a fact.
Also, Ukraine is running out of weapons, again, that's from Zelenski himself. Without weapons, one cannot fight, but to surrender eventually.
''Ukraine could win or Russia could get South and Donbas.''
''Any outcome is plausible.''
...meaning Russian Federation could capture entire Ukraine, when Ukraine runs out of weapons?
''My money is on Ukraine though and it ends with pre war situation.''
My money is on Russian Federation, and most likely Russian Federation controlling the South, and 'Finlandizing' Ukraine.
''The best case scenario is Donbass taken by Ukraine.''
The best case scenario for Ukraine would be Ukraine becoming 'Finlandized', not a bad fate, Finland is a rich country, leading in science and technology, high standard of living.
''Utopian scenario is Donbas and Crimea is taken by Ukraine. Unfortunately, not realistic.''
Possible, provided Ukraine had the stamina of UPA, and get all the weapons she needs, long enough, maybe forever? and Russian Federation does not adapt to the changing battlefield situation, but they're adapting.
Here's the Utopian scenario, U.S. NATO, EU, getting rid of MIC flunkies, wannabee SJWs, snowflakes, flag waving blowhards with too much beer, phonie, 'Sunday Christians', and Ukraine, and Russian Federation getting rid of all the kleptocrats, building a genuine representative democracy, and merging together.
1
-
Notice her tail. Always down in the beginning, but not between the legs. The doggie is stable, and calm, but not scared.
Later, after the rescue, still the tail is mostly down, even when wagging, even when she's excited. Very occasionally, the tail is either horizontal, or vertical, but always wagging widely, sometimes when doing the zoomies.
That is the kind of pittee you want to adopt. You don't want to adopt a pittee with the tail up, vertically, either rigid or wagging rapidly, but narrowly even when doing nothing. This is a sign of unstable, and high strung pittee.
1
-
1
-
@YoungHaveNot They might need more than 1 beating; multiple beat downs till they get it through that doggy brain, that does not think like humans.
Not all pitbulls need a beating; some are wonderful, fun, loving, stable pets, even when they had been abused/neglected, sometimes for life. Just look at all the heartwarming tales of pitbulls rescued from horrific conditions, and within a few days, to a few months at most, become loving pets for the new owners, forever. So much for the non-sense, abuse makes dogs more aggressive!
Then so many news of pitbulls raised from puppyhood, with love, and care, for years, and one day , they turn on their 'parent's, with no waring! One cannot spoil pitbulls rotten, and let them play alpha, a time bomb.
1
-
@matthews1082 I have never heard of abused dogs, pitbull or not, turn on the owner, but heard many owners who spoiled dogs rotten, getting mauled by the dogs they had spoilt.
If the beating is severe enough, often, enough, the doggy brain will not forget the pain/suffering.
Once the pitbull is traumatized by the beating, and associate it with behaving alpha, they will not want to be alpha, ever again.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Both NATO and EU have internal problems, with conflicting interests. Why Poles chose ROK. ROK could offer better alliance for the Poles, V4, and to the Baltic and Scandinavian nations, 20/30 years down the road, when PRC and DPRK collapse, and build an alliance around the hyper loop/tube trade route, through Central Asia. No threat to Russia, Iran, and on good terms with India. Poles, V4 and Scandinavian/Baltic nations rightly fear Russian encroachment, and in turn, Russia does not like interference from NATO/EU.
With an alliance that is committed to good terms to Russia, but still committed to support the alliance members with force, it would be a win/win/win deal for all. Stability, economic prosperity, and no more wasting resources on NATO, but on productive domestic investment for U.S.
Stiff banks on the opposite side is not as much of a problem. Armor support vehicles for river crossing operations can build a more approachable pontoon 'bridge' very fast, enabling the armored units to climb the bank.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
04:46 Dream/desire without the capability, both hardware, and 'software' aka 'willpower' means as much danger as pseudo-religious nutjobs in their pipe dream.
Communism no longer has the 'will power', and Russian Federation doesn't have the numbers ala the Soviet Union and her allies back in the Cold War days.
As for Poland, let's not forget before her 'victim' days. she had had an ambition of building an empire, swallowing Russia, Ukraine, and you think she would have stopped there?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Muscovite_War_(1609%E2%80%931618)
Even during her 'victim' days, Poles had an ambition that would be unacceptable today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Soviet_War
05:42 Latrine trench is full, too many flies!
05:53 IJA CEA had had at least 1,000 officers who had gotten fragged by their own men during the campaign, official figures, so the real number could be a lot higher, many officers/generals stealing from their own men, selling to the black market at a hefty profit, forcing men to rob the civilians for food, triggering a 'slippery slope', and the general breakdown of discipline that would result in Nanking.
16:13 That is the correct operational strategy, classic Soviet deployment in the later part of WW2, against the Germans, no amount of tactical brilliance/training/experience will compensate when one's supply is cut, and freedom of movement curtailed.
17:15 That's more likely. Nothing unusual. Many armies in history had behaved that way. Why risk a valuable experienced, trained, fit grunts, when you can risk people who are far less valuable, and loyal? Why MUM-T should be the future, especially in built up areas. ROK is BIG on MUM-T, not just the army, but all three branches.
19:40 I agree it's not comparable. Russia has a lot more justification than U.S. did in Iraq war, not the Gulf war, though.
21:14 A perspective, both the Finns during 'The Winter War', and IJA Kwantung Army on their 'Borders Wars' had fought a lot better tactically against the Red Army, in the early phase, than the Ukrainians now: they still ended up losing in the end. The Soviet did the usual, 'Ground and Pound', 24/7, not caring about minor tactical losses, just brushing them aside.
21:22 Prof. Mearsheimer, I am familiar with his work, a proponent of offensive realism: I am a Neo Classical Realist, the other realist school is Structural Realist. I disagree with Mearsheimer sometimes. He neglects the domestic variables, why nations go to war, he concentrates on international competition primarily.
I understand your point that Russian Federation would have expanded regardless whether NATO had expanded or not.
21:42 I see your point: I neither agree nor disagree with your view that Russian Federation would have expanded anyway to the Baltic states. I do disagree with Mearsheimer on this one. He's certain Russian Federation would not have expanded: I am not so sure. I do point out, however, that NATO expanding made it more likely Russian Federation would see NATO as a potentially hostile force.
21:58 I see your point. Btw. NATO has a right, too, to reject any nation from joining. So the matter is not just whether Ukraine has the right to join NATO, but also whether NATO has the right to reject Ukraine from joining as well.
My understanding of Mearsheimer is that a nation has 'right's proportional to the coercive force the nation has relative to its competitors. By that logic, Native American nations did not have the rights to exist, and I agree, what about you? Do you think they had the rights to exist?
Do you think U.S. was wrong to take their land by force?
I say U.S. was right to take their land by force.
How about U.S. annexation of Hawaii? Was it wrong?
Again, I'd say U.S. was right, and Mearsheimer would agree U.S. was right to take Hawaii.
22:35 Ironic, isn't it, the very same people calling Putin a dictator, have no compunction about limiting freedom of speech that don't suit their agenda. I'd say, whatever Putin is, he's less a hypocrite than U.S. Media/Politicians/and the usual SJWs.
22:46 I think I can explain this one, maybe better than Mearsheimer, since as a Neo Classical Realist, I also concentrate on domestic variables as well as international competition.
The powers that be in U.S. who want to suck Putin in Ukraine do not want the real truth coming out.
1. U.S. gets rid of a major competitor in energy market. EU becomes dependent on the gas from U.S. instead of Russian gas. Their loss, but gain for U.S. Not only U.S. gains a big customer, but also increases profit margin as well, BIG WIN for U.S. oil/gas giants. BIG LOSS for Russian Federation, and EU, especially the retail customers.
The retail customers in U.S. are going to be losing also, but not as much as the EU customers.
2. Military Industrial Complex, both in U.S. Russian Federation, and possible PRC, and EU, ROK are going to be making a lot of money. Remember, MICs make money, the bigger the conflict, and the longer the conflict.
3. Once EU becomes dependent on U.S. gas, EU is more likely to support U.S. in the potential coming conflict with PRC. EU does not want PRC controlling the sea lane between U.S. and EU.
Now, I am conflicted. U.S. can use an ally as big as EU against PRC when PRC misbehaves. I don't want the conflict in Ukraine expanding, and lasting, but it could turn out to be a big advantage, not only for U.S. but also, the world, including EU.
Now, another country is going to be a big winner, ROK.
ROK is the king of gas tankers, the most advanced and safest. For EU to import gas from U.S. they will buy a lot of gas tankers from ROK. Also, if EU takes a more pro-U.S. position against PRC, ROK again will be the biggest beneficiary, poaching many existing PRC accounts in EU, especially in batteries.
ROK will be a big winner when it comes to 5G/6G in Russian federation, after Apple abandons the Russian market. ROK could build 5g/6G monopoly in Russia, and use that as a base to go for the throat in EU.
ROK is also shopping for aerospace technology blueprint from both Ukraine, the leftovers from the Soviet days, and from Russian Federation, desperate finance.
1
-
1
-
@Thekilleroftanks ''also aces and well combat vetted troops/crew allows combat experience that you cant get from a non experience trainer to be passed onto the rookies.''
Indeed, that's why I am such a proponent of MUM-T. It is really a force multiplier for real.
Training time minimal, morale factor no issues, discipline no issues, either. Imagine just one seasoned vet commanding 9 droids, which are easily replaceable, especially in urban combat vet, or recon.
''its the reason US fighter pilots as the war went on started having a better average compared to germany or japan.''
That is true, however, that is not the most importance/decisive factors why U.S. won. It had to do with absolutely abysmal grand strategy of Axis, not that Allied strategy was brilliant: it wasn't, it simply was less dumb than the Axis.
''(then again japan is weird seeing their navy doctrine involved training their fighter pilots so hard and so long they themselves become aces before seeing combat.''
That's a Japanese thing, an artisan/craftsmen mentality, instead of mass production mentality. They care about individual quality, not the effect of total. Germans were more or less the same.
''..which fun fact becomes a problem when you can both cant get the fuel to fly and the parts to fly. to give them that time.)''
Japanese military had been brainwashed into 'warrior' worship mentality. Anything not having to do with direct combat was to be despised. This explains why they so much neglected logistics, and grand strategy.
They equated winning a battle, and the battle right in front of them is as important as winning the war, NOT!
Sometimes one has to be willing to lose a few battles to win the war. Not the typical Japanese military mentality during WW2, and prior.
Unfortunately, for U.S. today, I see this blind worship of 'warrior' mentality thing over the importance of logistics, and grand strategy, becoming more prevalent.
1
-
1
-
1
-
No, you got it backward. If Japan had been a near peer, then certainly Germany had been a lot more near peer than Japan, Allied top leadership had themselves agreed to defeat Germany first, as the lynch pin of the Axis. Japanese had higher morale than any other nations in WW2, what good did it do for them in the end? I understand it has always been very fashionable to attribute to morale as the most important, not just among academics, and the military crap, but also in popular media, but as I studied facts, it simply does not pass the muster.
1
-
@appleholo2336 I don't know about that. He's very critical of M1 gas turbine, for its fuel inefficiency. This is a non issue for OPEC or nations that produce enough petroleum for military purpose such as U.S. and Russia.
Even ROK that has to import most of the petroleum, its tank crew love T-80, one important reason is the gas turbine. They are just ecstatic how quiet, vibration free, comfortable, and easy to work on for routine maintenance than diesel, light weight, meaning more traversable over different terrain that will slow down diesel tanks, more maneuverable, over uneven terrain. ROK seriously thought about replacing its entire tanks with T-80 at one time.
1
-
@Mr_Wheels99 ''The Germans did not overall have better tanks.''
They did have superior longer range optics than Shermans, which increased the situational awareness as range increased, of course, Shermans had wider fov, but they had to get closer to get that advantage, so the initiative was on German tanks.
Consider individual exploits of German tank aces, such as Witmann. Had Americans ever had anything even close? Again, ironically, when Americans performed such a feat of action was when done by tank destroyers with thin armor, and no top armor on the turret, which greatly increased, speed, maneuverability, ventilation, bail out speed, and the situational awareness. Now, Nicholas Moran aka 'Chieftain' criticized TDs and Hetzer as well. As much as I respect him on tactical matters, he was wrong on the operational/strategic realm.
''German tanks burned just as much as American tanks, except their tanks were harder to get out of.''
Like I had said, they had superior long range optics, more likely to see the Shermans before the Sherman could see any Panzers, giving them. I don't know about you, dude, but I would rather see the enemy tank first before he can see me: That's far more important than how fast I can bail out when hit. That's called situational awareness, which tends to lead to tactical dominance, you can also read all about it in 'Ace Factor' by Mike Spick, no really that's his name for real.
''Plus, it was standard practice to shoot at a tank until it was on fire since that denied the enemy a usable tank.''
That's not how Michael Wittmann, proverbially the greatest tank ace in WW2 achieved his feat. Also other German tank aces in their great tactical triumph usually fired one round per enemy tank, they really couldn't afford to waste ammo on already disabled enemy tanks, when there were other enemy tanks barging in.
Like they say, penny wise, dollar foolish.
''Furthermore, the Germans design doctrine for tanks was shit. Being overly complex to the point where a tank would have to be brought to a depot behind the lines is a bad design, along with the fact that spare parts were in constant short supply. Being over engineered does not make a design good.''
While I agree with you that the German tanks were generally over-rated, and they confused tactical goals with operational strategic goals, without much regard for logistics, they were not shit. Tactically, overall they were superior to the allies.
''Did the Sherman have problems? Definitely. I don’t believe there is a “best tank” in World War Two, as every tank was built around its nations capabilities and doctrine, but if there was it wouldn’t be German''
I don't think you had read what I had already said. Shermans were the best overall tanks of WW2! Not T-34, not any of the Soviet tanks. Tigers and Panthers won battles, but Shermans won the war, that's what I had said.
1
-
@clarkbarrett6274 ''But "Shermans won the war" is at odds with the facts.''
Some 4000 Shermans were sent to the Soviet Union, and their tank crew, especially the veteran tank crew who had enough of T-34s loved them. That was enough number to have made the difference in Kursk, the final swan song for the Wehrmacht as an offensive force.
''27M dead Russians killing 5.5M Germans (80% of German casualties) ON THE EASTERN FRONT won the war. (These numbers will be different depending on your sources, just suffice it to say most of the German casualties were in the East)''
Oh, yes, too many people today, even the soldiers emphasize the kill ratio. I always point out to these people, the Germans had far higher kill ratios in the eastern front, they still lost the war. The Soviets had a far higher kill ratio in Afghanistan against Muj, they still lost the war. The Americans had a far higher kill ratio in Vietnam than Ho, they still lost the war. Some, even veterans who should know better, claim that U.S. didn't lose the war in Vietnam! And they point out kill ratios! The very same people who claim the Soviets lost the war in Afghanistan!
''I'm an American, and a retired soldier, so I love a rah, rah America is awesome story. But we batted clean up in WWII in the European theater. Our logistics and Lend Lease certainly helped the Soviets. But they did the dominant amount of fighting and dying. A fact we should not dismiss in the current environment...lest we see a repeat.''
I thoroughly agree. I am not impressed with the both senior civilian and military leadership for their grand strategic insight. I believe U.S. should not have gone for the Vietnam War, the Iraq war. U.S. should not have tried nation building in Afghanistan. I think Biden did the right thing there, but now doing something irrational in Ukraine, not as irrational as Dick Morris, though.
1
-
@TheChieftainsHatch '' First shot is very arguable. The gunner's sights on German vehicles were excellent for engagement, but atrocious for aquisition.''
Indeed. My speculation is that a commander with the hatch open, and a bino could get a far better situational awareness, and direct the gunner to the location, and with perhaps enough training/experience, the gunner could account for the lack of built in acquisition speed?
Another could be Edward debono's thesis of too many tools actually slowing down the speed of the employing the tools to reach a decision?
''Pretty much every other nation built their tanks with multiple optics for the gunner, both periscopic and direct vision, and the stabilisation system on Sherman also helped get a fast shot off. It's been one of those great mysteries to me as to why the Germans didn't look at the captured tanks from all their enemies and say "Gee, they are all doing this, why aren't we?" until the very end of the war.''
I did notice from my experience with Herr Kast from Military History Visualized, and others as well in the past, they don't like to be wrong, more than the Americans.
One time Herr Kast had made an obvious mistake, that even without air superiority, or at least parity, the German panzer doctrine around the time of D-day was still sound: I reminded him Rommel by that point gave up on the German Panzer doctrine without air superiority.
Another, he told me the reason why the Finns had not advanced faster toward Leningrad during the Continuation war was due to Finland being a democracy! He wasn't joking. I asked him what had Finland being a democracy had anything to do with advancing toward Leningrad. I pointed out that it had more to do with Finland's lack of suitable transport for logistics/supply lines than anything. No further reply from him. I think his lame response has more to do with currently fashionable white washing of Finland than anything.
Another time, Herr Kast claimed we should listen to our generals unconditionally since they have the skin in the game, I reminded him that he had said Japan in WW2 could have never won the war against U.S. due to industrial capacity discrepancies, and the decisions to go to war against U.S. was made by generals.
No response from him.
'' "Gee, they are all doing this, why aren't we?" until the very end of the war.''
The Germans are sometimes powerful iconoclasts. They don't like doing things just because everyone else is doing it.
And sometimes they are right! Just look at the development of tactical panzer doctrines. Everyone else was using tanks for infantry support, not a powerful independent armored thrust, to take the advantage of speed available.
The Germans did something totally different from everyone else, and it worked wonderfully.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheChieftainsHatch .. or it could have been simply Speer had decided to speed up manufacturing to deliver what was urgently needed, and not worry about bells and whistles. Speer was famous for being 'American' when it came to mass production. By that time, Germany was pretty pressed for everything, especially armor.
Why I believe MBT is a good concept, but it should be designed to be more modular and scalable, depending on the needs of the military, and the capacity of manufacturing.
Stripped down, very basic MBTs for the war time production, and full spec with all the bells and whistles, quality inspection of all the relevant components for the peace time production from the getgo, design, blue print stage.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Can it also better avoid IEDs as well than others? One reason why horses were still used in Rhodesia, far better able to traverse terrain littered with land mines.
Grey's Scouts
What gave the Mongols advantage was more than just horses, stir ups, and composite bows.
Mongols had a vast pasture land for raising large number of horses, they were ruthlessly culled for the most intelligent horses, with stamina, the rest were simply culled. Each soldiers had multiple horses, as many as 7, so if one died, it was no big deal, and they could rotate, not to tire out a single horse.
So long as pasture existed, Mongol horses were not picky eaters, so it gave huge, mobility/logistics advantage to the Mongols.
Today's equivalent would be autonomous armored units, able to move and fight no rest/sleep needed 24/7, so long as fuels and ammo remained, with advances in electric motors, batteries, and remote charging, rail gun, lasers, in the far future, even fuel and ammo wouldn't be an issue. Huge mobility/logistics advantage at the strategic level. One advantage ROK has over U.S. over China is: Beijing is not far away both land, and sea, and ROK can concentrate all her assets better than U.S. or China can at the 'brain' of the enemy.
Why ROK is aggressively pursuing autonomous armored units, also in air, and sea as well.
Btw. I don't think stealth motorcycle will help Zelensky; he lost the faith of the people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Notice her tail. Her tail initially was always down, even between the legs. Later on, the tail started wagging but still down, even when active, with occasional wagging up when extremely active.
Initially, the doggie was scared, but later gaining confidence, but still friendly and polite, with very occasional exuberance. This is the kind of pitbull you want to adopt.
You don't want to adopt a pitbull with the tail up, almost vertical, either rigid or wagging rapidly, but narrowly and vertically, even when doing nothing. That's a sign of unstable, and high strung pitbull.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Magnnolia's tail was never up. She was never truly an aggressive dog, but fear aggressive dog. She had her tail down even when she was barking/baring teeth! She was never truly dangerous.
Truly dangerous dogs have tail up most of times, when they are aggressive.
Truly dangerous dogs, as opposed to fear aggressive dogs cannot be cured, using positive reinforcement.
Only way to cure truly dangerous dogs is to beat them into submission when they get aggressive; get them tail curled between legs, pancake, belly to the bottom. Do this while showing a certain item, and/or playing a certain kind of music, so that the aggressive dog will remember the beating, and associate the beating with those items and/or music, and the dog's aggression, immediately prior to the beating. Beating an aggressive dog into submission is legal so long as it's performed while the dog is attacking.
The methods shown in this video does not work with the truly aggressive dogs.
Now, the dog below had been given baclofen, so she looks passive/docile. This is the dog that killed the rescue shelter worker.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ-Q7ZwIZBI&t=9s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSpEHhfkktc
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized 0400 Ichigo was a plus, a force multiplier in CCP’s victory in the civil war, but it was not the reason for their victory. It made their victory faster, but was not the reason. PLA had already engaged in moving in to the area vacated by KMT, and it was tolerated by IJA with the tacit understanding that CCP would not engage in sabotaging IJA against KMT. Local field PLA commanders not only did not object to this, but whole heartedly supported it against the wishes of CCP as a group. About the only CCP leader who whole heartedly supported this strategy was Mao, and the reason for him gaining the control of PLA.
The reason for the victory of CCP was in Manchurian campaign. Manchuria was the most industrialized part of China thanks to the Japanese occupation, industrial policy and the abundant coal, iron ore deposits there.
Plus the extensive railroad network and the armored train system built by the Japanese were a plus as well as Manchuria was the most ideal horse breeding ground in China, other than inner Mongolia, but inner Mongolia had neither major road or railway network to bring those horses into the heartland of China proper.
During the civil war, the best strategic mobility was provided by the railroad, and mobile firepower, the armored trains. The best tactical mobility, the horses. China had very poor road system, trucks were pretty much worthless when it came to strategic mobility, tanks few, and very poor infrastructures, air force, pretty much non-existent.
Another reason was IJA POWs, and IJA weapons, released by the Soviets to PLA in Manchuria, who provided both trained men power, and the training in light infantry tactics, even provided air cover for PLA in Manchuria against KMT, and it was for this reason, PLA ended up winning in Manchuria.
Initially, neither PLA nor KMT had home ground advantage in Manchuria, PLA were poorly armed, and trained, whereas KMT had been battle hardened against IJA and trained, equipped by U.S., and defeated PLA in no time. But then came several months of misguided truce brokered by U.S. Army and PLA used this to get IJA weapons, and to be trained by IJA POWs released by the Soviets for this very purpose.
IJA was big on light infantry doctrine, whereas U.S. Army was big on combined arms, but neither PLA nor KMT had the capacity to use combined arms, only light infantry. So PLA ended up gaining the advantage, and defeated KMT in Manchuria.
Once PLA gained the control of Manchuria, she could use the extensive railroad and armored trains to defend Manchuria easily from KMT. PLA would have had far superior strategic mobility, and mobile firepower against KMT’s attempt to take it back. Since Manchuria had abundant coal, iron ore, and horses, and the trained railroad personnel from IJA, PLA now could move into the heartland of China proper with impunity and attack cities when and where, and how PLA chose against KMT.
You can read all about if from ‘Mao, the Unknown Story’.
Btw. U.S. military advisers advised KMT against moving into Manchuria per Brig. Gen. USMC Ph.D. Oxford, Samuel B. Griffith. This was nothing more than self serving BS to avoid their responsibility in the victory of PLA. KMT could not afford to lose Manchuria for the reasons I had stated. It was the US. Military’s brokered truce that had given the opportunity for PLA’s victory against KMT in Manchuria.
Overall, I am not impressed with these prestige publications.
0632 Precisely. The Soviet was the real, existential threat to Japan, and that’s why Kodosha had advocated attacking the Soviet Union.
Even if Japan somehow managed to win a victory against the West, she would still have had the Soviets, and this time with no West to come to the aid of Japan, whereas if the Soviets had attacked Japan, and she started losing, then almost certainly the West would have come to the aid of Japan for their own sake. Another word, the West was a competitor, and potential ally, certainly not her enemy by choice. The Soviet was.
1235 Exactly, The railroad = Strategic Mobility, Mobile Fire Power = Armored Trains, extension/repair of railroad = iron ore, fuel = coal, Tactical Mobility = horses, coal, armored trains, iron ore, horses = Manchuria
1540 Opportunity for black market profit for corrupt IJA officers for selling the army rations, forcing the rank and file to loot and rob
2035 Exactly. I agree with Justin on this one. But so claimed Samuel B. Griffith. Another reason to be suspicious of official archives from non free government. And to be suspicious of people hiding behind prestige publications, and credentials.
2629 Let me qualify on this one, a bit. CCP controlled Manchuria, railroad network from there into China proper, coal mines with no bottlenecks, iron ore no bottlenecks, trained infrastructure people, armored trains, horses, IJA weapon deposits, IJA training for PLA troops. If one controlled Manchuria, with no hinderance, it was just a matter of time.
Mao was not a communist. He was a narcissist, hedonist, anarchist, an opportunist, and he knew it. He pretty much admitted it in private.
2800 On translation problem, solved. ‘Mao The Unknown Story’ had done the work. He even interviewed the surviving witnesses for the first hand account, not just relying on archives. British Journalism at their finest, but neither Cambie nor Oxie.
Btw. My criticism was on the publisher, not necessarily the author’s educational background.
3000 Again, Justin got it right. I blame Marshall mission for KMT defeat in the civil war more than anything else. ‘Mao The Unknown Story’ makes this absolutely clear.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@zbiku82 ''there is soonay holes in your statement that I don't know where to start.''
You got a hole yourself.
''First of all... China.... Russia has nothing to offer rather than fossil fuel.''
PRC has very little fuel to export, fossil or not.
Russia has a lot of cheap, affordable fossil fuel, that the rest of world depend on: most 3rd world countries do not have the luxury of going off fossil fuel. If the West do not buy Russian energy, she will simply expand her sales to the rest of the world outside the West.
...and even EU/NATO countries, non-fossil fuels are far more expensive than fossil fuel in general, and certainly even more expensive than cheap Russian fossil fuel.
What this means is that the standard of living for average peoples of EU/NATO will go down, since almost everything depends on fuel, cost of pretty much everything will go up, way up, and not just on absolute scale, but also relative to the rest of the world.
What this means is that the economic competitiveness of the West will erode relative to the rest of the world. So double whammy will hit the West, people will have less discretionary income, less money to spend for 'fun' stuff, since they will have to pay more for 'essential' items, like food, transportation, utility, and it will cost more money to manufacture items in the West, since energy, transportation/shipping, etc will cost more, meaning the West will have to, either charge more money for the same items and/or make less profit for the same item, meaning less profit from export to the rest of the world.
Over a period time, this will have accumulative effect, the longer the sanction last, the bigger economic damage to the West, out of proportion to the length of time sanction lasts.
This will result in some nations in the West, cheating, buying cheap Russian oil/gas through black market, and EU/NATO will be faced with dilemma. To maintain credibility, EU/NATO will have to either punish the cheaters, or expel the cheaters.
What if the cheaters don't want to be punished? What if the expelled cheaters simply go to Russia?
This was what unraveled Napoleon's empire. He decided to damage Britain by sanction, aka 'The Continental Blockade', and it did damage Britain, initially, so what did Britain do?
Why, simply expand the trade with the rest of the world, outside Europe! And still trade with the cheaters from the Continent, notably, Portugal, and Russia.
Napoleon felt compelled to punish Portugal, and Russia to maintain his credibility: thus 'The Peninsula War' aka 'Spanish Ulcer' and the failed invasion of Russia.
These two wars bled Napoleon's resource dry to the point his coalition was severely weakened, while the opposition got the defectors, and became strong.
The result was Waterloo, and the end of Napoleonic hegemony, and the beginning of the Great Britain, the Empire Sun never sets!
''Most of China India trades is conducted with the west.''
Not even close, only about 30% for PRC, and the same for India as well.
https://www.worldstopexports.com/chinas-top-import-partners/
https://www.worldstopexports.com/indias-top-10-exports/
Remember if the West were to launch sanctions against PRC and India, it would hurt the West more than it would hurt PRC, and India.
The West now will have to manufacture domestically the stuffs that can be far more cheaply bought from PRC and India, meaning, the standard of living will go down even more drastically, and people will have even less money to buy 'fun' stuff, meaning the West will become far less relevant to the rest of the world as trading partners, meaning far less influence.
Whereas both PRC and India can still manufacture the stuff they need to use, just less export, meaning less income, but at least they wouldn't have to worry about inflation as much as the West, so long as they keep buying cheap Russian oil/gas. Yes, they would get hurt, just not as much as the West, over the long haul, this will grant them relative advantage economically against the West.
''Prices of oil gas might cause recession but Western countries are many many many times richer and economies way mire robust.
Russia has GDP on a level. Of single European country... Nit very impressive for biggest country in the world''
GDP for the West will go down drastically due to people having less money to spend for 'fun' stuff, due to having to pay more for essential stuff, due to the inflation, whereas GDP for the rest of the world, and Russia will not go down as much, relatively over the long haul, this will have the effect of increasing their importance in the world relative to the West.
The biggest winners in this scenario will be OPEC, Venezuela, maybe Norway, and ROK. ROK will not join oil/gas embargo against Russia, if anything ROK will increase her investment in Russia, due to less competition due to the West pulling out of Russia. Whatever Russia needs technologically she cannot develop at competitive cost, ROK will provide, as much as she can, making a lot of money for herself, so long as those items are not sanction list.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@snowdogthewolf '' I guess you didn't notice the effect this Putin atrocity has effected NATO.''
U.S. abetting and assisting ROK's war crimes during the Korean War didn't affect the Cold War. Are you implying NATO is being racist?
''New members, increased solidarity, reaffirming common defense (Article 5), massively (MASSIVELY) increased military budgets of not only NATO members but hopeful members as well.''
You forgot, all based on the foundation of sand: One cannot maintain a strong defense budget when economy is weakening, and NATO's economy is weakening: unsustainable.
''During this same time, Russia has lost a significant potion of its military readiness (most experts agree approximately 1/3, which is staggering).''
You mean, the very same people who had, and still support the U.S. failure in Iraq and Afghanistan?
''Now Russia is asking China for help and sending in ancient equipment (obsolete T62 tanks, for example) in desperation.''
anonymous
''If the US sent equally obsolete M103's or M60 battle tanks into Iraq or Afghanistan, I would be worried and know something was critically wrong with the current state of our military.''
U.S. is sending obsolete SPGs to Ukraine.
''Russia is currently doing this.''
Why not? After all, U.S. did use many obsolete equipment in Vietnam successfully, at least at the tactical level.
''There will come a point of financial, logistical and monetary equilibrium concerning support for Ukraine from NATO and other Western nations, but it will continue to be significant and continuous.''
NOT! U.S. military canceled F-35 as too expensive, unsustainable! F-35 would have cost only 1.5 trillion over 55 year life span: If U.S. continued to support Ukraine at the current level, it would cost 9.5 trillion over the same life span. NOT happening.
U.S. is already on the verge of renegading the deal made in supporting big tech investment in U.S. some 54 billion, U.S. pledged 56 billion? Really, U.S. is wasting the money that could be used to support tech investment into a money pit, at the most corrupt nation in Europe.
''The real concern for Russia is what Ukraine will look like 5-10 years from now after the war.''
Ukraine by then would not exist. The West would be sick and tired of Ukraine and move on to some other 'cause', just like U.S. forgot about Iraq and Afghanistan.
''The assistance from the West will be unabated after the war to modernize Ukraine's military (now all NATO standard weaponry), rebuild its cities (now modern cities much like the Western powers did for Germany, Japan and Korea after those wars) and jumpstart their economy.''
It's not going to happen since Ukraine wouldn't exist by then.
''In 20 years from now... and that's just down the road progressively speaking... Ukraine will be an incredibly powerful European power and likely a NATO member.''
You must be dreaming, for that to happen the West will have to pump money after money into a money pit, and hope Ukraine gets rid of rampant corruption: they are not happening, not with the inflation, and choking the economic foundation of the West by Russia
''They will possibly have an NBC program and a seething hatred for Russians.
Ukraine will be a poisonous thorn in Russia's side for generations now.''
All the more reason why Russia won't let up.
''It's unfortunate for peace, which is what we all want.''
You gotta be joking: the current U.S. policy is driven by enabling MIC to make money, not peace.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What do you expect? It's a dog sanctuary dude, the kind of people who think dogs are like people, like their own children! Now, some, a tiny percentage of polar bears might behave like (nice kind of) people, just like a tiny percentage of dogs might behave like some (nice kind of) people.
But overall, they think/act like polar bears, and dogs. Why U.S. leads the world in fatal unprovoked non-feral dog biting. If you treat a dog like a person, the dog will treat you like a dog. You don't want that, with some (not so nice kind) dogs. If you treat a bear like a person, the bear will treat you like a meal, or even another bear; you don't want that, either.
1
-
1
-
1
-
On suppressive fire, I read that the best AD gunner among Muj was a deaf man.
With the impending introduction of battle droids, the tactical doctrine of suppressive fire is going to be obsolete.
'hyndai rotem multi-purpose unmanned ground vehicle'
ROKA is already implementing them for recon, and logistics support; urban warfare version is to follow soon.
On barrel change after 250 rounds, maybe they should bring back water cooled mgs? M1917 could fire tens of thousands of rounds continuously, with no barrel change, and replenishing water is far more automatable than barrel change. With a battle droid, the weight shouldn't be much of an issue.
On razor core; it's got a competition now.
'duretek, High Performance Projectile'
I see you're taking a break from Ukraine; as I had said a long ago, it was a done deal. What do you expect from the Institute for Study of War, Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Ukraine.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GUNNER67akaKelt Dude, I was speaking in jest, calm down.
Still, U.S. could take Panama and give it back to Columbia, no? After all, U.S. had no problem taking Panam from Columbia, to begin with.
U.S. does own Hawaii, and the lands robbed from the natives, no? So U.S. could grant independence to Hawaii, and give all the land back to the natives, no?
1
-
@GUNNER67akaKelt Why was it ok back then, but not ok now?
Btw. I would have supported robbing the natives of the land, and annexing Hawaii, and taking Panama from Columbia; they were necessary for vital U.S. national interest.
If one is not strong enough to defend what one claims, and cannot get anyone strong enough to defend for one, one does not have the right to have it.
If one can make the better use of the land claimed by others, for the betterment of mankind, one has the moral right to take the land from the one claiming it.
If it is in the genuine (not pretended, like Vietnam, WW1, Spanish-American War, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine), national interest of U.S. then U.S. should violate the rights of any country out there.
It's not just Xinjiang, but what about Okinawa, Hokkaido? Do you know how they became a part of Japan, not so long ago?
or what about Jeju island, how it had become a part of Korea?
They just took them by force, simple as that, and it wasn't even in their national interest to do so.
China, not just PRC has far better reason to take Xinjiang than the Japanese and Korean did regarding, Okinawa, Hokkaido, and Jeju. Why was it ok for Japan and Korea to do in Okinawa, Hokkaido, and Jeju, but it's not ok for PRC to do the same?
By the same token, some other countries in the future might take areas claimed by PRC today, for a good reason. If the nation is strong enough, and has good enough reason, then that nation will have the right to take.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@faaldeyra
''Not to mention there were and still are a considerable amount of people against making Hawaii a state'' - faaldeyra
''Hawaii became a state in 1959 toward the tail end of WWII, relatively shortly after Pearl Harbor. This was done pretty much alongside Alaska becoming a state.'' - faaldeyra
So why had you said there are still a considerable amount of people against making Hawaii a state?
''''Stop talking about my home if you don't know its history. (Notice I'm playing your game now)'' - faaldeyra
''Well, do you?'' - Hyok Kim
''7) Yes, I do, considering you had to ask if Hawaii was a state makes me wonder. Do YOU?'' - faaldeyra
You claimed that there are a still considerable amount of people against making Hawaii a state.
''Not to mention there were and still are a considerable amount of people against making Hawaii a state'' - faaldeyra
Why are you lying?
''2) You cannot be born a hypocrite. By your logic, since everyone's ancestors participated in slavery & conquer culture, nobody can have an opinion.''
Where had I said, ''You can be a born hypocrite.''
Where had I said, ''Nobody can have an opinion since everyone's ancestors participated in slavery & conquer culture.''?
Why are you lying?
''3) Yes, it's ignorant based on my answer to the previous question.'' - faaldeyra
''Not to mention there were and still are a considerable amount of people against making Hawaii a state'' - faaldeyra
''and it was the best possible outcome considering the fact that there was an entire world war.'' - faaldeyra
There was no world war during the annexation of Hawaii.
''4) I don't care what Russia says. I have a problem with your line of thinking.'' - faaldeyra
What kind of problem? Too much honesty, and logical consistency for you?
''It was a little less than half of Native Hawaiians that protested the annexation, with the rest being in favor of it and also wanting it to become a state.'' - faaldeyra
''The overthrow of Lili'uokalani and imposition of the Republic of Hawaii was contrary to the will of the native Hawaiians. In fact, there had been a series of rebellions by Native Hawaiians since the imposition of the Bayonet Constitution in 1887. On January 5, 1895, during the "Wilcox Rebellion," an armed revolt was suppressed by Republic of Hawaii forces. The leaders of the revolt were imprisoned along with Queen Lili'uokalani.
In March of 1897, William McKinley was inaugurated as President of the United States. McKinley was in favor of annexation, and the change in leadership was soon felt. On June 16, 1897, McKinley and three representatives of the government of the Republic of Hawaii – Lorrin Thurston, Francis Hatch, and William Kinney – signed a treaty of annexation. President McKinley then submitted the treaty to the U.S. Senate for ratification.
Queen Liliuokalani and her fellow citizens successfully protested the annexation by petitioning Congress. Two Hawaiian groups, Hui Aloha 'Aina and Hui Kulai'aina, one group for men and one for women, organized a mass petition drive. They hoped that if the U.S. government realized that the majority of native Hawaiian citizens opposed annexation, the move to annex Hawaii would be stopped.''
''7) Yes, I do, considering you had to ask if Hawaii was a state makes me wonder. Do YOU?'' - faaldeyra
Why are you making up stories?
1
-
@faaldeyra
''Not to mention there were and still are a considerable amount of people against making Hawaii a state'' - faaldeyra
''Hawaii became a state in 1959 toward the tail end of WWII, relatively shortly after Pearl Harbor. This was done pretty much alongside Alaska becoming a state.'' - faaldeyra
WW2 ended in 1945; Pear Harbor happened in 1941.
''and it was the best possible outcome considering the fact that there was an entire world war.'' - faaldeyra
There was no world war during the annexation of Hawaii.
''It was a little less than half of Native Hawaiians that protested the annexation, with the rest being in favor of it and also wanting it to become a state.'' - faaldeyra
''The overthrow of Lili'uokalani and imposition of the Republic of Hawaii was contrary to the will of the native Hawaiians. In fact, there had been a series of rebellions by Native Hawaiians since the imposition of the Bayonet Constitution in 1887. On January 5, 1895, during the "Wilcox Rebellion," an armed revolt was suppressed by Republic of Hawaii forces. The leaders of the revolt were imprisoned along with Queen Lili'uokalani.
In March of 1897, William McKinley was inaugurated as President of the United States. McKinley was in favor of annexation, and the change in leadership was soon felt. On June 16, 1897, McKinley and three representatives of the government of the Republic of Hawaii – Lorrin Thurston, Francis Hatch, and William Kinney – signed a treaty of annexation. President McKinley then submitted the treaty to the U.S. Senate for ratification.
Queen Liliuokalani and her fellow citizens successfully protested the annexation by petitioning Congress. Two Hawaiian groups, Hui Aloha 'Aina and Hui Kulai'aina, one group for men and one for women, organized a mass petition drive. They hoped that if the U.S. government realized that the majority of native Hawaiian citizens opposed annexation, the move to annex Hawaii would be stopped.''
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So far as of now, only U.S. has the true 5th gen fighter jet; neither PRC nor Russia has them. Claiming one has it, and making it look like one doesn't cut it.
PRC's so-called, 5th gen has been detected by the Indian radars, not even the state of the art. Russia has claimed 'Checkmate' in order to deter UAE from getting interested in KF-21; it has turned out to be a vaporware.
Not only that PRC fighters jets suffer from ultra high downtime, as high as 90%! Downtime champ of the world.
I agree overall with the video at the operational level, but not at the strategic level.
I also disagree at one point at the technological level, which would affect at the operational level.
Right now, the biggest technological flaw of F-35, and U.S. stealth coating technology is the lack of durability and high maintenance costs.
U.S. stealth coating emphasizes performance, at the cost of maintenance, and durability. This makes sense in a way; it makes the pilots happy; they don't care about the operational consequence, only tactical level. This also makes LM happy, since they get to charge big bucks for maintenance to U.S. military, and other customers. Depending on the volume order, and the distance to U.S. authorized service center, F-35 maintenance cost vs. KF-21 maintenance cost is as high as 9:1.
U.S. stealth coating has been until very recently was the most effective stealth coating out there, but neither very durable nor low maintenance. Every time F-35 hits Mach, it has to be inspected, and coating re-applied, using expensive equipment, and technicians. Very expensive, and time consuming, increasing downtime, and decreasing the sortie rate.
This doesn't matter that much at the tactical level, but has serious consequences at the operational level, since the percentage of F-35s ready on demand, in real time will decrease; thankfully PRC jets are even worse, and they perform far less than F-35 even when they work.
As for NGAD's emphasis on 'team work' approach for the assortment of technologies, is suspect since F-35 has been plagued with buggy software, and still is. Even more 'team work' approach of technologies, than F-35, when F-35 still has buggy problems. Many customers who have operated F-35s are not happy: UK, Canada, and Australia.
UK RAF pilots have participated in KF-21 Development/testing flights with ROK AF pilots; in attendance were 4 star RAF general, and UK ambassador to ROK. They had no issues on the technology, and performance. Right now, UK is negotiating with ROK for the potential purchase of 60 KF-21s. UK is expected to cancel 60 F-35 orders. UK wants to find out how good of deal ROK can offer.
Canadian AF VIPs have attended KF-21 demonstration/test flights very recently; they are not happy with F-35s, one of which had crash landed. LM is investigating but is most likely to blame the pilot. F-35 stealth coating is very susceptible to air friction, and the cold air is a lot denser than warm air, increasing the friction.
All three are also not happy with the operational restriction placed on F-35s they have purchased by U.S. They are not allowed to even maintain their F-35s, without U.S. permission. This doesn't benefit U.S. but does benefit LM, who does the maintenance, and charges a lot of money.
Poles are also interested in acquiring KF-21, about 32. Even though they had already committed to purchase F-35s.
Now, ROK stealth coating exceeds U.S. F-35 stealth coating overall; they used to have less performance, but far better durability. One time coating application based on metamaterial technology they have developed: Lifetime warranty for the lifetime of the aircraft frame. Recently, they were proven equal to F-35 even in performance, and they are steadily improving. In a few years, KF-21 stealth coating is expected to not only equal, but superior to even F-22.
Very recently, ROK has completed world exclusive, muti-spectrum band stealth 'slippery' coating; it would make putting a radar lock on KF-21 virtually impossible, even if F-35 detected KF-21 on radar. Without radar lock, VBR radar guided missiles would be worthless.
Another technology breakthrough very recently was sonar based anti-radar jamming technology; it works on all radars, even AESA radar on F-35. It fills the enemy radar screen with the duplicate image of one's fighter, top to bottom, side to side, making it useless for finding the location of the enemy fighter.
KF-21 AESA radar also has outperformed F-35 AESA radar recently on tests done by IDF, and not by thin margin, either, but by a substantial margin. IDF offered co-production deal; ROK has chosen Leonardo of Italy instead. I guess they didn't want to piss off the Arabs, and Leonardo has a lot of potential sales leads in ME, and Africa.
LM has called for co-production deal on both the KF-21 stealth technology, and the sonar-based anti-radar jamming technology. So far ROK has refused.
Right now, Saudis, UAE, Egypt, have made firm offer/negotiations for KF-21.
Saudi is expected to order 300 to 500 KF-21s. ROK is building an entire city, autonomous factory city specialized in building fighter jets, 24/7, 365 days, other than maintenance. Fuselage Automated Splice System will be used to assemble the jets, 8 times faster than the traditional methods, world exclusive.
India, Germany, Spain are also interested. India is expected to order 200 to 300. Indian AF VIPs have been attending KF-21 demonstration/test flights, along with Saudis and UAE AF VIPs. ROK is going to be arranging German and Spanish pilot to fly KF-21s as well.
What's missing in U.S. AF strategy is the space. Why ROK AF is putting an emphasis on twin engine on KF-21, for better ultra high altitude performance, which is the gate way to the low orbit.
The adaptive engine is a fool's gold; who cares when you control the space, neutralize the enemy satellites, whether the enemy fighter engine can work more efficiently than yours. No GPS; deaf, dumb, mute, blind. All those gadgets talked about in the video would be useless.
You have to dominate the ultra high altitude before you can dominate the space. Once you dominate UHA, you could launch microsatellites into low orbit, mass deployment at economical cost, on demand, in real time, and then target both earth bound targets, and the enemy satellites above. Two birds in one. You can send suborbital fighters, maybe with A.I. pilot robots with no need for lifesupport system, with extra momentum from ramjet/scramjet engine, and with boosters, with the targeting from the microsatellites, could neutralize the enemy satellites.
Now, the enemy's GPS guided weapons/command/control system become deaf, dumb, blind, and mute. You could defang the enemy war machine with impunity or ''F them in the ass from the top''.
ROK is also ahead of not only U.S. but also Russia in ramject/scramjet engine, with the ability to turn on/off on demand, in real time, after ignition, in mid flight. This means KF-21 or missiles thus equipped could turn off the engine to cruise for extended range, as much as 4 times the regular ramjet/scram jet engine, or go for maximum stealth, by gaining enough speed, and turn off, by the time it enters the enemy AD zone, the engine would have cooled down, no infrared, with the chassis already stealth against radar and infrared, plus with the sound slightly below Mach, no sonic detection, for the ultimate SEAD.
As for the 'loyal wingmen', ROK AF very recently finished the squadron level flight of UCAVs. No human controller, so not even MUM-T, but totally autonomous.
ROK is working on pibot, to replace humans altogether in fighters, especially, suborbital fighter, MBTs, SPGs, and subs.
You have to dominate the UHA first, then space, and neutralize the enemy satellites, and SEAD, and defang the enemy war machine, and the blockade. Eventually in the future, with advances in sensors, neutralize the enemy silo-based ICBMs, and even SLBMs as well. U.S. will have to decommission the silo-based ICBMs: Deathtraps in waiting.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@verdebusterAP ''Cost effective doesnt factor in''
Why wouldn't it factor in? Do you even know the primary rationale for F-35, the so-called, 'JSF'?
''The CVNs can use Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) with F-35C, F-18s , E2-D and FA/XX''
FA/XX is another fool's gold; U.S. needs to fix the main problem plaguing F-35 first: Buggy software, and non-durable, too fragile stealth coating, causing severe downtime issues, and unsustainable operating cost.
''For LHA/D which operate away from CVNs, the VAWS with F-35B is literally the only option''
Like I had said, F-35b is not cost-effective. ROK MC originally had planned for LHA with F-35b, but recently canceled it. The main reason: F-35b unreliability, combined with non-cost effective military effectiveness.
F-35b is the most expensive, the least reliable, and the least effective, both for air superiority, and CAS. It should not have been born. Why does USMC need F-35b in the first place? Their primary mission is amphibious assault; they can call USAF/USN for air superiority. For CAS, all they need is Apache. F-35b was nothing more than a 'turf' fight that got out of hand. Shame on USMC for robbing the tax payers for the 'egg roll' contest.
1
-
@verdebusterAP Dude, you're only pointing out pedantic tactical metrics; one does not judge how the war is going based on temporary tactical reports, but in terms of grand strategy.
Zelensky canceled the election: he's lost the people of Ukraine. They lost faith in him.
''Zelensky Refuses To Hold Elections in Wartime Ukraine''
The vaunted Ukrainian counter-offensive was a pathetic failure. Ukraine cannot last even 6 months without the Western support; Russia doesn't need foreign support to continue the war.
Ukraine is now running out of manpower. Whatever army Zelensky has is untrained, unfit, and unmotivated. Notice Cappi who supports Ukraine, is AWOL on Ukraine for a while. No mention of canceling the election, either. The writing is on the wall.
Remember the battle of Buldge? A temporary tactical advance, and Ukraine couldn't even duplicate, just some raid, and you call that a proof of success! That's the sign of desperation, not confidence.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davidgoodnow269 ''Hyok Kim How is exhaust going to be made undetectable? Even cold propellants, like CO², have to expand outward under pressure. That creates a point of high heat at the point of pressure release. Can that be concealed from view? Yes. But the more thrust you need doing work, the harder that is to conceal.''
You didn't read what I had said. The missile could turn off the engine sometime before entering the IRST zone, so that by the time it enters the IRST zone, the exhaust would be at an ambient temperature.
''A hyper-velocity anti-aircraft missile being stealthed from RADAR, easily! (The missile itself. The compression shockwave and passage of that missile, not if the opponent is even marginally technically competent.) The thermal signature? The thermal track? Not in an atmosphere!''
There has been a breakthrough recently. You are not up to date.
Google, 'jae won hahn, stealth'
''The closest you can get is a glide-and-maneuver phase, staggered with thrust phases.''
Which hypersonic cruise missile has that capacity?
''That is similar to what hypercavitating torpedoes have to do, and for the same reasons. That provides opportunity to use active countermeasures to destroy or destabilize or spoof the missile (or torpedo)''
Would it work against this torpedo?
'Report: South Korea Is Developing a Super Torpedo That Could Attack at 200 Knots'
''Anyone who can't lacks either imagination or mechanical, technical, abilities. Taking down a hypervelocity ballistic missile requires two things to come from, "We had that in the '70's," to, "This is easy." High definition RADAR has improved into the current 7th generation, and that gives the necessary tracking precision and reach; sufficiently focused power transmission at fast enough speed of three-axis motion with sufficient speed. That latter is within reach, of Korea certainly, but no one is even trying! Everyone is content with head-on intercept at very high cost, rather than pursuing systems capable of side-on or even chasing engagement using comparatively cheap reusable systems.''
Are you talking about hypersonic cruise missile, or hypersonic ballistic missile?
''This is why they fail. I have, in retirement, formulated six completely different intercept systems that are, all of them, capable of intercepting any existing or proposed aircraft or missile, all cheaper than any existing system, all within current reach, and all based on the basic facts I just handed you. So, do you have adequate (A) knowledge of the laws of physics, and (B) imagination, to guess at least one?''
Would your system work on metamaterials based stealth system like Jae Won Hahn's?
1
-
1
-
@davidgoodnow269 ''Oh, yes, this is a tremendously effective and cost-efficient use -- stealthing something that is stealthy in its behavior, and has a largely fixed and known environment -- but just like a missile can be tracked by the "bow wave" it creates in atmosphere, submarines can be tracked by the water they compress and roil even at depth, by rolling colder or warmer water and creating a track. Both of those are old, established, highly refined mature techniques. Move slowly and thoughtfully enough, and the submarine will remain undetected.''
ROKN had already claimed as much: Nuclear subs are quieter than most conventional subs, but less than the state of the art AIP subs. Btw. Not all nuclear subs are the same: PRC nuclear subs are notoriously louder than even 80s Soviet nuclear subs.
Still, nuclear subs have the advantage of range, and speed over AIP subs, but that advantage is shrinking gradually by the advances in technology, and new strategy of employing subs.
ROK has recently perfected autonomous mass production technology of big ships, even warships, including subs; they can produce high quality warships/subs faster than anyone in the world.
Also, there is pibot, A.I. pilot robot that can be programmed to operate, planes, MBTs, and even subs.
'World's first humanoid pilot robot 'PIBOT' operates aircraft using AI technology'
What I consider ROKN's future strategy involving subs would be mass production of autonomous mini-subs, both nuclear, using ROK's own SMRs for offensive, AIP for defensive primarily, but could be towed by either nuclear subs to open deep ocean, and/or quantum photonic engine.
'Researchers realized a near-perfect photonic quantum engine driven by superradiance'
I hear the talk from ROKN that some of the later variation of up to 8 aircraft carriers ROKN is going to have by 2050 might end up using quantum photonic engine as well.
Obviously, with autonomous subs, once commissioned, they would not have to return to the port, but stay dormant till needed for decisive action, giving huge advantage in mobility, response speed, and logistics.
'Anechoic tiles will be something to put inside a submarine, then.'
Columbia class is going to use it on outside; great for MIC, bad for USN, and tax payers.
''Defeating any single hypercavitating torpedo is easy, and fairly cheap. You use depth charges, because against surface ships that is cheapest and easiest to fit, and supercavitating torpedoes cannot travel on or near the surface, they have to use an inversion of the anti-ship missile track. When a depth charge strips the envelope from a hypercavitating torpedo, that torpedo hits an incompressible wall of water at whatever speed it is traveling. Against surface ships, the tactic is to deploy two hypercavitating torpedoes which herd the target against each other, and use the noise from those to conceal two homing/guided quiet torpedoes to get them in close, then go silent before a final dash. Due to dealing with three dimensions, you double those numbers against a submarine. Submarines have difficulty using depth charges, they use small guided anti-torpedo torpedoes for defense. All of that is fairly open-source, even beyond being simple logic.''
The super torpedo ROKN was working on is the more stealth, smarter, and longer range version of the Russian Shkal.
It would approach the enemy high value target using electric motor, for much of the path, using the aforementioned metamaterial stealth, and home in guidance, and once it reaches 'Can't miss zone using super cavitation', then only then the super cavitation would be activated for the final drive to the target.
1
-
@davidgoodnow269 ''''To clarify, the achievements of Jae Won Hahn's working group is very impressive. It is, in my own unhumble opinion, unlikely to be employable in the ways a certain brief article described, to conceal soldiers in treated field uniforms!''
ROK has already come up with something far more robust than that.
'Fully stretchable self-charging power unit with micro-supercapacitor and triboelectric nanogenerator based on oxidized single-walled carbon nanotube/polymer electrodes'
''To explain that, one needs only to have served in a military in the field! The U.S. Army issued field uniforms treated with a chemical to shield its soldiers from thermal detection, in the 1990's. That chemical was destroyed by heat, it could only absorb so much . . . and the Army made its soldiers iron their uniforms. The U.S. Army issued boots treated with silicone to waterproof them . . . and made its soldiers strip the silicone from the leather, because it prevents boot polish from sticking . . . and the Army wanted those boots to shine!
Washing any clothes treated with the described nano materials will gradually and progressively remove the nano particles from the fabric, probably very quickly, but maybe not if deeply bonded at the atomic level. It would then depend on chemistry, as to whether the nano particles have a preferential bond to the molecular arrangement of the fabric, or to the cleansers or even dissolved minerals.''
ROK is universal mandatory conscription for males. He most certainly served.
''But his work is that of the engineer, not the theoretician, and the subject at issue is one theorized since Intel began using carbon nanotubes to provide cooling for computer processors in . . . hmmm . . . the late 1980's or early 1990's, I think it must have been. Back whenever the Pentium 66 or 90 MHz Pentium processor came out, and you really could heat a cup of coffee on one! (Though that did kill the processor, usually.)
Many, many people filed grant proposals to be paid to contemplate other possible applications for the same, and related, effects. Like most theory, it is often so long after papers are written that an idea becomes achievable, that the papers are largely forgotten. But meanwhile, countermeasures are planned, resources allocated, grants issued, because the clock starts for use and countermeasure at the same time.
I.B.M. waits until technology advances to the producible before filing its patent applications, on theory and math often decades old. Just do read a few dozen I.B.M. patents on the U.S. Patent Office website and you probably will see examples of that. The U.S. military is, I used to find, generally about thirty years ahead of the civilian world. That has changed with the adoption of "Commercial Off The Shelf" (C.O.T.S.) systems starting about thirty years ago, with the end of the Cold War. In theory, that would mean that those military systems are now at best equalled by civilian. But the civilian development economy does not parallel, much less follow, the military development thinking. The results are quite disparate. Technology developed for banking was far superior to a certain purpose than military technology, twenty years ago. It completely lacks properties essential to military purpose, then and now. And so it goes. Civilian technologies repurposed to military use often saves money, but that which is designed from the start to meet an essential military need is going to either end up completely without equal, or else laughably inferior to a commercial product. You never know until they are side-by-side and under military use-case!''
In ROK, any technology that is exclusive to military use cannot be patented to private entities; it belongs to government, and any company making weapons related to that technology can use it freely.
Of course, the company/engineer who developed the process would gain a cut of the weapon finally selected by the government, even if another company developed the final product selected by the government using that process.
This gives the private entities incentives to develop original process without the fear of missing out profit, on the final product, and at the same time, making the virtual economy of scale possible, making R&D so much more effective and efficient.
'South Korea Leads World in Innovation; U.S. Drops Out of Top 10'
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Military intervention should be based on the sustainable optimal totalitarian national interest of the nation intervening, not any pseudo-moral or religious reasons.
U.S. intervening to annex Hawaii and the the Native American lands was optimal, both for U.S. and for the world, whether it was for the best for the people of the Kingdom of Hawaii and the Native Americans or not; In the end, it didn't matter. They were not strong enough. They had no right to keep the land from U.S.
U.S. intervening to take Panama from Columbia was also optimal both for U.S. and for the world.
U.S. should have annexed Cuba after the Spanish-American war. That would have been the best for U.S., Cuba, and the world.
U.S. should have granted Philippine independence from the get go, instead of playing the colonial overlord.
U.S. should have sided with Kaiser in WW1, and granted all the colonies independence; it would have kept Germany occupied with managing Europe, and kept communism out of Russia, with U.S. benefiting from the trade with the ex-colonies.
No WW2, The Cold War, and the pseudo-Islamic radicalism later on.
Before his death, someone asked Alexander the Great, on who would be his designated successor should he die, he responded: "To the strongest one."
U.S. had engaged in terrorism, and has supported the terrorist movement when it was in U.S. interest. Anything wrong with that?
1
-
1
-
@Schwarzvogel1 Thanks for spending your time and energy for objective criticism. I am grateful.
‘’I beg to differ. The U.S. didn't "get it right" in any absolute sense. They only "got it right" given the enemies they were facing--a heavily battered and bleeding Wehrmacht, and a Japanese army that had virtually no armoured support.’’
First of all, you don’t need to beg to differ. Be proud to differ. So what strategic mistake had U.S. made regarding adopting TDs/
‘’The Hellcat wasn't a brilliant design at all; it only worked because the American forces enjoyed almost total air supremacy in their areas of operation, and didn't face heavy amounts of German artillery.’’
No, U.S. didn’t. There lies in the brilliance of Hellcat. Why spend more money to add more armor and closed turret when they weren’t needed in strategic sense, and would have only slowed down the Hellcats, and cost more money, plus more breakdowns due to overworked engines and suspensions like Tigers/
Why spend more money, slow down breakthrough advances, invite more reliability, fuel, logistics problem when one doesn’t have/
‘’If the U.S. armoured doctrine during WWII was so great, then why didn't they stick with that into Korea and Vietnam?’’
Because there is no universally valid optimal strategy across the time and space. Each war needs different optimal strategy depending on terrain, weather, logistics, and the enemy dispositions.
Korea and Vietnam were very different situations than WW2 overall.
Btw. U.S. did use TDs in Korea. Also, in Vietnam, heavily armored U.S. tanks had great problem going through mud field. Not only they got stuck, but also, at least in one case, one actually sunk. You can read about it in ‘Tank Sergeant’.
In fact, that was one very good reason U.S. made a great use of Ontos, very light weight, thinly armored, no turret, but closed casemate with recoilless guns. They didn’t get bogged down in the muds like heavily armored tanks. Do you think Tigers and Panthers would have fared better or worse/
‘’Why did virtually every belligerent after WWII immediately start designing "do everything" tanks (i.e. MBTs)?’’
And have they been proven to work better than open topped turrets/
‘’An open-topped TD is a great way to get your crews killed by enemy CAS and artillery.’’
You forget the purpose of TDs. They were never intended to fight alone against CAS, and the enemy artillery.
Btw. How do you think Panthers and Tigers fared alone against CAS and the artillery/ Not very well.
It matters not whether TD is an open top turret or closed top turret or even a Panther or Tiger if attacked alone by CAS, artillery, one is doomed. The best response would be to bail out asap. And open top turret would be faster to bail out than closed.
‘’How do you think that American army would have fared if they had to fight the Soviets in Operation Unthinkable, the hypothetical invasion of the USSR after 1945? I suspect that the Hellcat and Jackson would have undergone radical designs quickly in the face of Katyusha barrages and incessant attacks from Il-2s!’’
Two possibilities.
1. U.S. gaining the air superiority. This would have resulted in U.S. CAS neutralizing the katyusha, and of course, by definition, no II-2s. U.S. would have won whether she had been armed with Tigers, Panthers, or Hellcats, however, with Hellcats, U.S. would have far more Hellcats, than Tigers or Panthers. With Hellcats, U.S. would have won far more decisively than Panthers, and especially Tigers.
II-2s would have been pretty much worthless for air superiority.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-2#Air-to-air_combat
2. Soviets gaining the air superiority This would have meant it wouldn’t have made a difference if U.S. had been armed with Panthers, Tigers, or Hellcats.
Overall, U.S. still would have been better off with Hellcats, than either Panthers or Tigers.
‘’You mention "strategy," but what you describe sounds far more like tactics than strategy, to be fair.’’
Me think you’re projecting your obsession with tactics to mine.
Hellcats were far cheaper to build and to maintain. Open top turrets had far better situational awareness than closed top turrets. If you see MHV videos regarding panzer tactics, one tactic the Germans used was to use MGs to discourage the enemy commander opening the hatch for better situational awareness. Also, the German Panzer IIIs and IVs outfought the vaunted T-34s, partially due to better optics, the Panzer III IV crews could see the T-34s before T-34 crew could see them.
Also, open top turret would have had far better ventilation than closed top turrets. T-34 crews often suffered due to lack of ventilation especially with the diesel engine running and the gun firing. One reason IDF tanks outperformed the Arabs was A/C.
Also, open top turret means far faster bail out time, meaning the experience the tank crew built was not lost when the tank blew up.
Plus the hellcats fared very well even against vaunted Panthers and Tigers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M18_Hellcat#Combat_performance
‘’The main strategic advantage the U.S. had was its excellent logistics and incredible industrial capacity... and the fact that Americans were smart enough to choose to live far, far away from anybody who could actually bomb their country with WWII-era technology.’’
All those advantages I mentioned above get amplified when combined with industrial capacity, meaning even bigger advantages through additional numbers, and less downtime.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1