Military equipment & technology used in the war

Argus101

Robin
Protestant
Great post by @Belgrano (p.5, post #85) on battle theory "and why no single weapon system is ever going to be a 'game-changer' in modern war... at least between opponents who know what they're doing." I was struck by this particular statement in the quoted article, "Precision weapons are
NOT game changing weapons. In fact in most cases precision weapons are inferior to dumb munitions." I was reminded of a classic science fiction
short story by Arthur C. Clarke that humorously depicts the pitfalls of relying on new, advanced weapon systems that haven't been fully tested.
According to Wikipedia:

"Superiority" is a science fiction short story by British writer Arthur C. Clarke, first published in 1951. It depicts an arms race during an
interstellar war. It shows the side which is more technologically advanced being defeated, despite its apparent superiority, because of
its willingness to discard old technology without having fully perfected the new. Meanwhile, the enemy steadily built up a far larger arsenal
of weapons that while more primitive were also more reliable.

Reminds me of the endless blather and numerous articles by Popular Mechanics magazine about how new, more advanced weapons were going to defeat the enemy during the Vietnam War, which we lost anyway.
 

get2choppaaa

Hummingbird
Orthodox
Great post by @Belgrano (p.5, post #85) on battle theory "and why no single weapon system is ever going to be a 'game-changer' in modern war... at least between opponents who know what they're doing." I was struck by this particular statement in the quoted article, "Precision weapons are
NOT game changing weapons. In fact in most cases precision weapons are inferior to dumb munitions." I was reminded of a classic science fiction
short story by Arthur C. Clarke that humorously depicts the pitfalls of relying on new, advanced weapon systems that haven't been fully tested.
According to Wikipedia:

"Superiority" is a science fiction short story by British writer Arthur C. Clarke, first published in 1951. It depicts an arms race during an
interstellar war. It shows the side which is more technologically advanced being defeated, despite its apparent superiority, because of
its willingness to discard old technology without having fully perfected the new. Meanwhile, the enemy steadily built up a far larger arsenal
of weapons that while more primitive were also more reliable.

Reminds me of the endless blather and numerous articles by Popular Mechanics magazine about how new, more advanced weapons were going to defeat the enemy during the Vietnam War, which we lost anyway.
This is refelcted in the way that the NATO forces prepared Ukraine for this war. They prepared for an Air War and got an Arty War. Something that should have been predicable considering the Russian/ Soviet military doctrine and order of battle.... One might have made the obvious conclusion that their massing fires propensity would continue as the engaged dug in forces in trench warfare. This was going on since 2015 in the Donbass.

Drones are great and all, but PEOPLE win wars. Boots on the deck holds territory. Artillery prevents occupation. One Aircraft can take out a battery with multiple gun runs... but when you just combine a little Air Deffense caps and overlap them with concentric circles of coverage, you can place multiple firing positions and spread them out over multiple kilometers with adequate coverage.

This whole thing seems to have been an incoherent (or frankly designed to fail) strategy of fighting the war by the Ukrainian goverment.

AND incredibly predictible.

But hey what do I know, I was only an artillery officer.
 

dicknixon72

Pelican
weapons are
NOT game changing weapons. In fact in most cases precision weapons are inferior to dumb munitions." I was reminded of a classic science fiction
short story by Arthur C. Clarke that humorously depicts the pitfalls of relying on new, advanced weapon systems that haven't been fully tested.
According to Wikipedia:

"Superiority" is a science fiction short story by British writer Arthur C. Clarke, first published in 1951. It depicts an arms race during an
interstellar war. It shows the side which is more technologically advanced being defeated, despite its apparent superiority, because of
its willingness to discard old technology without having fully perfected the new. Meanwhile, the enemy steadily built up a far larger arsenal
of weapons that while more primitive were also more reliable.

Reminds me of the endless blather and numerous articles by Popular Mechanics magazine about how new, more advanced weapons were going to defeat the enemy during the Vietnam War, which we lost anyway.

Pretty sad we don't even learn from our own victories where during the Second World War, we - and the Soviets - simply outbuilt the Germans' arguably superior weaponry until we achieved victory.

Every brilliant mind and piece of metal wasted on an ME 262 or Arado bomber was like fifty B-24s and B-17s obliterating the Fatherland.
 

Argus101

Robin
Protestant
Pretty sad we don't even learn from our own victories where during the Second World War, we - and the Soviets - simply outbuilt the Germans' arguably superior weaponry until we achieved victory.

Every brilliant mind and piece of metal wasted on an ME 262 or Arado bomber was like fifty B-24s and B-17s obliterating the Fatherland.
Not to mention the millions of marks spent by Wernher von Braun and his crew on the revolutionary V-2 rockets, which being unguided after launch,
were useless against military targets.
 

Handsome Creepy Eel

Owl
Catholic
Gold Member
This is refelcted in the way that the NATO forces prepared Ukraine for this war. They prepared for an Air War and got an Arty War. Something that should have been predicable considering the Russian/ Soviet military doctrine and order of battle.... One might have made the obvious conclusion that their massing fires propensity would continue as the engaged dug in forces in trench warfare. This was going on since 2015 in the Donbass.

Drones are great and all, but PEOPLE win wars. Boots on the deck holds territory. Artillery prevents occupation. One Aircraft can take out a battery with multiple gun runs... but when you just combine a little Air Deffense caps and overlap them with concentric circles of coverage, you can place multiple firing positions and spread them out over multiple kilometers with adequate coverage.

This whole thing seems to have been an incoherent (or frankly designed to fail) strategy of fighting the war by the Ukrainian goverment.

AND incredibly predictible.

But hey what do I know, I was only an artillery officer.
Just like the degenerate western minions thought they could deplatform Russia like they did to their own hapless citizens, it seems that they also thought that a "drone rush" like the one seen in Armenia could work against a serious military with anti-air defenses.
 

get2choppaaa

Hummingbird
Orthodox
Just like the degenerate western minions thought they could deplatform Russia like they did to their own hapless citizens, it seems that they also thought that a "drone rush" like the one seen in Armenia could work against a serious military with anti-air defenses.
Frankly they just didn't focus on the correct threat and order of battle.

Artillery is king in a war of attrition. Especially in the Russian army structure.

Meanwhile the USMC is cutting cannon battery units....

Clearly an intelligent move...not...

But early on my understanding is that the Ukr artillery was very effective. They just have been depleted.
 

dicknixon72

Pelican
Frankly they just didn't focus on the correct threat and order of battle.

Artillery is king in a war of attrition. Especially in the Russian army structure.

Meanwhile the USMC is cutting cannon battery units....

Clearly an intelligent move...not...

But early on my understanding is that the Ukr artillery was very effective. They just have been depleted.

From what I have heard/read, USMC is trying to reimagine itself back into a fast-deployable amphibious quick strike force meant to rapidly deploy, secure a beachhead or insertion point, then let the Army do the heavy work instead of being an adjunct Army Lite and slogging it out as regular Army infantry might, or I may be wrong...?
 

get2choppaaa

Hummingbird
Orthodox
From what I have heard/read, USMC is trying to reimagine itself back into a fast-deployable amphibious quick strike force meant to rapidly deploy, secure a beachhead or insertion point, then let the Army do the heavy work instead of being an adjunct Army Lite and slogging it out as regular Army infantry might, or I may be wrong...?
Yes... But the problem is that that fast deployable force is built on a combined arms solution. Air power is not the hegemon it was during. The GWOT. Artillery is king and mech/armor has got to support the maneuver forces ability to hold positions.

Current commandant is trying to emulate General Victor Krulak (fascinating man, specifically the book Brute) and take a lesson of his book by arguing for a unique capability.

The problem is that the army is not a professional force in the same way the Marines are. Sorry for the hoahs out there..it's apples to oranges.

But again.

What do I know. ;)
 

Pointy Elbows

Kingfisher
Orthodox
^Well, that's interesting. It gives evidence that the US is working to back-door S. Korea, Japan, and maybe even Taiwan into the "NATO Adjacent" community. Kind of like how "gay adjacent" kids just somehow get monkeypox, Poland gets weapons from a different Pentagon Franchisee - S. Korea.

This is a new twist on the old "dump your Warsaw pact hardware on the hapless Ukes and get some fancy western trinkets as replacement." Well, look here, Korean tanks are NATO compliant:


These folks really are committed to WW3, and the general public is sleepwalking. What a racket.
 
Now we know the reason why Poland gave away all of that. It's rather shady and I wonder if the US is somehow financing this behind the scenes.


^Well, that's interesting. It gives evidence that the US is working to back-door S. Korea, Japan, and maybe even Taiwan into the "NATO Adjacent" community. Kind of like how "gay adjacent" kids just somehow get monkeypox, Poland gets weapons from a different Pentagon Franchisee - S. Korea.

This is a new twist on the old "dump your Warsaw pact hardware on the hapless Ukes and get some fancy western trinkets as replacement." Well, look here, Korean tanks are NATO compliant:


These folks really are committed to WW3, and the general public is sleepwalking. What a racket.
It was never a secret that Poland and other former eastern block countries will receive modern western replacement systems in exchange for that Soviet/Russian hardware, but there are some troubles with deliveries - the main one is that no one in the west has a surplus of tanks and howitzers just locked in storage.
The Poland-Korea deal is actually absurd and it just shows a weakness of western military industrial complex - Poland already demilitarized itself, and the new toys aren't coming. For example Germany said it will be able to deliver Leopard tanks to Poland somewhere in the 3rd quarter of 2023 and if I remember correctly it will be 3 tanks a month at the beginning.
The bought and paid for Abrams tanks will arrive in Poland in 2025. They were even about to receive (bought and paid for) HIMARS back in May but the ukrainians got the dibs on them.
With the failure of western suppliers, Poland turned east to look for weapons, but I don't see a long term strategy in all of this - Koreans will skin them alive at the negotiation table...

The compliance of Korean, Japanese and Taiwanese weapon systems with NATO standards shouldn't be a surprise - they are vassal states of the US empire and they need to keep their arms in line with current American equipment.
It would be pointless if a Korean soldier couldn't use American ammo - they are trained to fight side by side so interchangeability is a must.
 

Handsome Creepy Eel

Owl
Catholic
Gold Member
Poland continues to demilitarize itself


I really hate it how otherwise reasonable countries like Poland totally lose their minds upon encountering an issue like Russia. It's like a red mist descends on their eyes and they're like:

MUST... CUCK!!!

Croatia has the same blind spot in regards to Serbia, Serbia in regards to Kosovo, and Greece in regards to Macedonia, where all of those countries will throw everything into the wind and actively harm themselves and their interests over that one issue, no matter the consequences. It's pathetic and disgusting.
 

OrthoSerb

Robin
Orthodox
I really hate it how otherwise reasonable countries like Poland totally lose their minds upon encountering an issue like Russia. It's like a red mist descends on their eyes and they're like:

MUST... CUCK!!!

Croatia has the same blind spot in regards to Serbia, Serbia in regards to Kosovo, and Greece in regards to Macedonia, where all of those countries will throw everything into the wind and actively harm themselves and their interests over that one issue, no matter the consequences. It's pathetic and disgusting.
Maybe I'm biased here, but how is Kosovo a blind spot for Serbia? Surely the cucking would be if we bent over to join the EU/NATO to do to other people what was done to us? Or if we accepted the loss of a spiritual heartland in exchange for some promise of better living standards or a Western lifestyle (iPads, cheap beach holidays, Starbucks etc)? Which one of those "interests" (which are always presented as such by our Western friends) are you saying shouldn't be sacrificed for our territorial integrity or a living connection with our spiritual heritage? That's not to say I hate Albanians or am agitating for a war with them, but at the same time I'm not sure how its cucking to not renounce a moral and legal claim to your land and be prepared to suffer somewhat for it.
 
Last edited:
Top