Military Thread: Humanity Hanging from a Cross of Iron

kanisatha · June 3, 2022

Excellent article on the NGAD fighter, lots of great details:

https://www.airforcemag.com/article/piecing-together-the-ngad-puzzle/

Gfted1 · June 13, 2022

New KF51 Panther Tank Packs Big 130mm Gun Aimed At Aging Leopard 2 (thedrive.com)

Gorth · June 17, 2022

On 6/14/2022 at 4:49 AM, Gfted1 said:

New KF51 Panther Tank Packs Big 130mm Gun Aimed At Aging Leopard 2 (thedrive.com)

No idea if it's any good in a fight, but I will give it a few bonus points for the artistic impression

Gfted1 · June 17, 2022

I think the MBT is going the way of the Dodo. Its too vulnerable to drones and you can do the same thing (punch holes in stuff) from much larger distances with Hellfire (or like) equipped UAV's.

kanisatha · June 17, 2022

1 hour ago, Gfted1 said:

I think the MBT is going the way of the Dodo. Its too vulnerable to drones and you can do the same thing (punch holes in stuff) from much larger distances with Hellfire (or like) equipped UAV's.

Completely agree.

Modular robotic systems are the future of warfare.

Sarex · June 17, 2022

6 hours ago, Gfted1 said:

I think the MBT is going the way of the Dodo. Its too vulnerable to drones and you can do the same thing (punch holes in stuff) from much larger distances with Hellfire (or like) equipped UAV's.

You can never hold ground without something on the ground to hold it. Imo, the tank is here to stay, the only question being how long it will be manned.

Drones right now don't have an effective counter, ie. something that doesn't cost more than the drone it takes down. But you can look at Ukraine and, if you cut down on the BS talk, you can see that drones really can't do anything on their own.

Edited June 17, 2022 by Sarex

Gfted1 · June 17, 2022

46 minutes ago, Sarex said:

Drones right now don't have an effective counter, ie. something that doesn't cost more that the drone it takes down.

I wonder about how the microwave system will pan out. For example, whats the range of Tactical High Power Operational Responder - Wikipedia? If its not greater that the range of an ATGM, the drones can loiter outside of range and pepper the targets at will. Of course, I assume they thought of that. :lol:

Azdeus · June 17, 2022

8 hours ago, Gfted1 said:

I think the MBT is going the way of the Dodo. Its too vulnerable to drones and you can do the same thing (punch holes in stuff) from much larger distances with Hellfire (or like) equipped UAV's.

It's long, but very worth it.

BruceVC · June 22, 2022

2 hours ago, Gorth said:

This one is really more for the military thread, but iirc, Kursk was the last serious attempt by the Wehrmacht to encircle a large number of Soviet troops?

~~https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5067240/~~

https://www.c21media.net/screenings/3dd/hitler-uncovering-his-fatal-obsession/18167/

I just watched this 2 part documentary about Hitlers obsession with occupying the Soviet Union

It discusses the battle of Kursk and how the Soviets defeated the Nazis and you cant blame it on the bad weather and lack of winter clothing like the previous battles at places like Stalingrad. It was the biggest battle in the history of war with millions of men engaged.

The Soviets lost tens of thousands of men but they were the superior army at the end of the day

Edited June 22, 2022 by BruceVC

Gorth · June 22, 2022

33 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

The Soviets lost tens of thousands of men but they were the superior army at the end of the day

More like the superior numbers army

Soviet losses were almost 4:1, losing 800000 men (out of a starting army of 1.8 million) to the Wehrmachts 200000 (our of a starting army of 760000). But the Soviet army had another 1.5 million men in reserve, east of the salient to start an immediate offensive the moment enemy was worn down at Kursk. And yes, Operation Zitadelly ("Citadel") was the third largest engagement in WWII after Barbarossa and the one without any catchy names in the far east when 1.5 million Soviets destroyed over 750000 Japanese in Manchuria (600000 casualties), the Japanese surrendered 2 weeks later. All 3 engagements also featuring obscene numbers of tanks and aircraft. Contributing factor to Hitler losing interest in Kursk was the allied landing in Sicily and a new vulnerability on the southern front.

Edit: Moved Kursk conversation to the military thread...

BruceVC · June 22, 2022

40 minutes ago, Gorth said:

More like the superior numbers army

Soviet losses were almost 4:1, losing 800000 men (out of a starting army of 1.8 million) to the Wehrmachts 200000 (our of a starting army of 760000). But the Soviet army had another 1.5 million men in reserve, east of the salient to start an immediate offensive the moment enemy was worn down at Kursk. And yes, Operation Zitadelly ("Citadel") was the third largest engagement in WWII after Barbarossa and the one without any catchy names in the far east when 1.5 million Soviets destroyed over 750000 Japanese in Manchuria (600000 casualties), the Japanese surrendered 2 weeks later. All 3 engagements also featuring obscene numbers of tanks and aircraft. Contributing factor to Hitler losing interest in Kursk was the allied landing in Sicily and a new vulnerability on the southern front.

Edit: Moved Kursk conversation to the military thread...

Yes this documentary mentions the high loss of Soviet lives, something like 5 to 1 at Kursk, and how Stalin was prepared to throw millions of people into all battles during Barbarossa but their was more to it than that

For example the Soviet citizens and soldiers were mostly prepared to fight and die considering the horrific carnage and war crimes the Nazis had committed against them during the invasion

And also something I didnt know, the closest the Nazis came to defeating the Soviets was when they nearly captured Moscow in the beginning. And it wasn't just the early winter and the resistance that prevented this. When Stalin realized that Japan wasnt going to invade and help Germany he was able to move his Siberian units to the battle of Moscow and they made a huge difference as they were well trained and equipped

You will already know much of what is in this documentary but you should watch it anyway

Zoraptor · June 22, 2022

The thing about casualty numbers are that they're generally based on (also generally, massively inflated) German figures. The soviet ones just weren't available.

The classic example being Operation Bagration. 'Official' figures have the Soviets suffering twice the casualties despite it being just about the most lopsided land battle of the entire war- the German casualty rate was a staggering ~80% by most estimates, and some put it closer to 90%.

Gorth · June 22, 2022

Also worth noting, "casualty" usually covers troops lost to the army. Some may return later. I.e. the above 800000 Soviet casualties were estimated to be 250000 (nice round number, sources invariably disagrees) dead and 550000 wounded, captured, lost unit cohesion/contact, deserted etc. Effectively unavailable to the army after the battle. Often makes it sound more impressive than it is.