Chris Werb

What you mean is LastDingo has been suspended for responding to constant goading by American right whingers. The folks here who are happy to characterise their opponents as rats etc. but are too intellectually fragile to accept a similiary robust expression of an opposing viewpoint. Since I am a moderator here, but have been excluded from the deliberations in the MODERATOR forum for some time, I have long since assumed I had been expelled from the otherwise right wing cabal running this site. In all the time I was a moderator, I never used my powers to shut down an opposing viewpoint. I am sorry it has come to this. This is a sad day for TN but it long since lost most of its military enthusiast following and just became another Trumpster circle jerk. To those of you who get to read this before Murph and his neofascist cranks delete it, thank you for your patience. Goodbye.

In RN service, the US 3", in use on the otherwise excellent US supplied Captain Class (US Evarts) was regarded as most unlikely to penetrate the hull of a surfaced U-boat. Why did it take so much time to get a worthwhile AP round for it into service? The RN had a special 4 inch anti-surfaced U-boat round in service toward the end of the war called "Shark".

Brown or slightly off-white guy and/or espousing islamic religion = terrorist White guy with right wing leanings and/or racism vs brown or slightly off-white people or foreigners and/or hatred of those with religions other than Christianity and/or views significantly to the left of his = lunatic Simples!!!!

More https://www.28dayslater.co.uk/threads/tank-depot-lenta-italy-june-2019.118569/

I think Poland's belief that it's air force would even get off the ground in the event of a conflict with Russia is bizarre. F-35s are an enormous waste of money. That's way off topic though. Has anyone heard any more about the potential K2 buy?

Sorry Murph, did you read any of the last few posts? If it's a bioweapon it's an amazingly crap one.

I really don't think Egypt's navy is even a factor for Israel - it's more of a national prestige thing for Egypt. I think Egypt attacking from the air would put them at odds with their sponsors, the United States. However, a larger problem Israel has is its lack of strategic depth which poses a risk from even relatively moderate range precision munitions. It's airpower is particularly vulnerable as it is dependent on runways (I'm sure they have rapid runway clearance and repair in place, but it's still going to be problematic in the first few days from the onset of a conflict). I'm a lot more confident of their ability to shoot down ballistic and quasi ballistic threats than cruise missiles. I read somewhere (might have been yourself) that Israel is looking at protected dispersed underground storage for key munitions etc., which would make a lot of sense.

Egypt, Syria, and reshaped Hezbollah. Of them, only Egypt is a near peer. But history has shown that in less than 20 years, the reference threat can turn completely, from multiple peers to low intensity warfare, and back to peers. The IDF needed to constantly move between preparations to high intensity to low intensity and it was always with a delay that resulted in unnecessary losses and some inefficiency. So now the strategy is to constantly be prepared for multi-front warfare against peers, with some modifications always in place to be ready for low intensity and hybrid warfare. Sure, disbanding a whole brigade sounds bad, but Israel has another 11 of those which might still be a bit much considering it wants "only" 10 expanded Brigade Combat Teams. It still expands the maneuvering forces by creating additional light infantry units for increased strategic mobility. Egypt is a semi-stable country. A political change is not expected anytime soon, but it had seen some government overthrows. In the future, it can unilaterally tear up the peace treaty. Syria is recovering, and only the Turkish invasion is a setback. Overall, I expect Syria to regain substantial military capabilities until 2030, and to become a significant threat again before 2040. Hezbollah is constantly evolving, and from simple Katyusha and Grad rockets plus some advanced ATGMs, it has evolved to operate limited armored formations, cannon artillery, has deep penetration units, and operates in formations of battalions. They were once in possession of simple cruise missiles, but could possess by 2030 far more advanced and capable ones, and from long range rockets they could advance to SRBMs. Even though most of Israel's enemies are "low tech", they still have substantial capabilities to inflict a lot of harm in a very short time, even if they have to expend most of their munitions to do so. To counter that, the IDF has been particularly interested in tech that reduces engagement times, to permit its forces to clear out vast areas as fast as possible. I think that's a very good assessment, Zuk. However, I think it would be very pessimistic to see Egypt becoming a peer threat in even 20 years. Syria more so given it's economic devastation and remaining internal problems, despite its apparently much deeper emnity. Both have pretty lacklustre regimes in charge and economies that won't be able to fund a massive increase in capabilities in the near future even if their military institutions could absorb it. It wouldn't just need an influx of funds and technology but of competence. I know that happened before, but Israel is so way ahead in so many ways and has so many alternative means of dealing with the kind of massed armoured forces that would need to be deployed to invade that it's hard to see a repetition of 1973, even allowing for the changed geography. Israel wouldn't stand still over the next 20 years either. So, I agree losing an armoured brigade, given that the existing ones are becoming ever more capable vs an opposition that is not, is a big deal at all.

Realistically, what peers could Israel face that would have the remotest chance of taking them on successfully, conventionally at some point over the next decade or two? You mentioned recently that Israel disbanded or intends to disband the last Merkava 2 brigade. In their existing security situation that would appear a perfectly sensible thing to do.

So do you think reactivating the Iowa class battleships would be a good idea?

The idea is to engage from outside MANPADS envelope - c. 11,000ft straight up. APKWS handily outranges that. Fitting DIRCM and/or other countermeasures should not be too problematic. The Leonardo Miysis for example is claimed to fit small aircraft and UAVs.

That's the conclusion I reached in game. My favourite vehicles for lethality vs combat persistence (disregarding survivability, infantry capacity and other factors) are the Piranha DF30, CV90/40, Pizarro and BMP-2.

I've just been reading Hitler's u-boat war and Blair mentions Doenitz' opinion that all weapon system development should be undertaken by Private industry given the colossal fuck ups made by German naval weapon design agencies. You also have situations (particularly in the US and UK) where private industry came up with failed r severely compromised designs because the objectives they were given by government were unattainable, mutually exclusive or downright idiotic.

But what happens when innovation has no clear commercial application until after its built? There were plenty of those all through WW2 and the cold war. For example, that link above on the laser. They said it was an invention in search of an application for years. If Hughes had not built it under a military contract, it would probably remain theoretical. Re-read what I wrote. Especially the bit in Italics

So we're continually stuck with the same old thing because the next generation of tank or AVLB/ARRV has to be on the same platform as its opposite number?

Ryan, I completely agree with you that government input is generally not required in designing and producing something, given that a commercially viable market for that thing exists. However, I really don't think there is a clear cut distinction between things government makes and designs being bad and those designed by private firms being good and I think you could come up with as many examples as I could that cut both ways. As you point out, where commercial design and production score is typically in variety of products and speed of innovation.

That arms industry comes at the cost of all the domestic problems widespread availability of military style guns cause in the US. We don't want that here, and therefore are happy to purchase those small arms we need (other than sniper rifles) abroad. I would be interested to know how much the US small arms industry contributes to the US economy vs how much the weapons they produce detract from it through the harm they inflict, both directly and indirectly. Taking the USSR as your example, government did not as you correctly state, produce massive variety, but it did produce what are generally regarded as very good guns - the AK was unarguably better than the government designed M14 and on a par with the civilian designed AR. The PKM was better than the M60 (government designed) and arguably better than the MAG (privately designed).

Exactly.

If you take the time to read the actual circumstances of a lot of the ship losses in the Med, they honestly don't appear remotely as impressive in the context of a swift dash down from Scapa Flow and elsewhere to attack an invasion force, under local air cover.

Remember what happened the last two times they took on the Finns. In relative terms Finland is probably much better prepared now than it was prior to the Winter War.

I would have to check, but that was around the time they finally found a reliable break into 4 wheel Enigma if I remember rightly. Im sure there were many other technical advances showing up at the same time, but I think that was probably the main cause. The allies were also deploying escort carriers and MACs in significant numbers and had finally (sort of) gotten it together on deploying VLR aircraft - both carrier and VLR aircraft had much better depth charges, rockets and homing torpedoes. Escort and support groups were becoming plentiful with better training, better cooperation with aircraft, better sensors and weapons. It got to the point that some convoys were deliberately sailed into known u-boot patrol lines to flush them out and provide targets, particularly to air. In return the Germans (who did not believe we had broken Enigma, were using HF/DF to anything like the extent we were and were unaware of centimetric radar) tried a variety of things - the T-5 anti escort homing torpedo, arming u-boats with lots of 2cm and 3.7cm Flak guns and telling them to sail in groups and fight it out with aircraft on the surface, sonar and radar decoys and a new radar detector (that also could not detect centimetric radar). None of that worked against the overwhelming numerical and technological strength and increasing competence of the allies in the air and at sea. That and shortly thereafter they Germans definitively lost the ability to decode our convoy comms. They were fucked and, as Jeff pointed out, they were sent to their deaths simply to cause virtual attrition in numbers of sailings by the enforced maintenance of the convoy system and to tie up allied resources in tracking them down and killing them. Another key was the ability to inflict serious losses in the Bay of Biscay with all types of aircraft using centimeter wave airborne radar. The ahead thrown weapons greatly increased surface ship lethality vs subs. Especially as the Germans were unaware of centimetric ASV radar until long after its introduction. The increase in lethality of unguided AS weapons was staggering. Obviously, you have to look at weapon as part of a weapon system as it was necessary to locate the submarine in three dimensions and launch projectiles to coincide with it. The Squid was directly linked to the recorder on the Sonar which provided accurate range and depth data on the target and continuously updated the fuses until launch - some accounts say it actually fired the mortar. In one account I read, a typical DC pattern early in the war, directed by ASDIC of the period had about a 2% chance of killing a typical u-boat in deep water. Twin squid, used on Loch class frigates, with its attendant 144/147 sonar combination (also used with Hedgehog on some vessels) yielded a kill rate of 60% per salvo. Obviously, DCs would have an improved chance if used in combination with that sonar suite too, but post war trials apparently found that Squid was still nine times more effective than depth charges (presumably hydrostatic fused cylindrical rather than the much improved American tear drop shaped, fast-sinking magnetic fused ones).

Bojan, there aren't that many places where I would expect battle to take place inside dense forests which is a place you really don't want to take an armoured vehicle for a variety of obvious reasons. The Hurtgen forest fiasco wasn't as much evidence of lack of US capability to fight mechanised in forests as a classic example of choosing the wrong place to fight. Ambushing from forests etc. yes. I don't therefore see much point in designing a vehicle with fighting in forests as a major requirement. For Serbia maybe, but not for most countries. On your point about wheels being crap on ploughed fields in Poland, you're quite right of course, but the Poles have invested heavily in wheeled armour. So did the Russians and the Finns, who seem happy to continue. My only experience is in Steel Beasts and wheeled AFVs do have some advantages, particularly in allowing rapid road movement over substantial distances with a degree of protection. It's easy to spend far too much on what is, after all, an armoured box that's dead if it gets in line of sight of an enemy MBT* - I'd much rather spend that money on other things. It's really "horses for courses" as you know with both wheeled and tracked having advantages in different circumstances. The French, who you would think would have an institutional memory of mud better than most, have (IIRC) gone entirely wheeled with their IFVs too, which strikes me as a bit crazy given that they will be paired with an MBT with very different operational and tactical mobility. We have the same problem integrating Ajax and Boxer in the ridiculous Strike Brigades someone dreamt up. *Mostly also true of IFVs.

My guess is ALARM was capability gapped for a few reasons. At the time, it didn't look like we would be getting into a peer-peer conflict for some time, by which time SPEAR Capability 3 would enter service. SPEAR offers a better and more versatile capability against a much wider range of fixed, semi mobile and mobile targets on land and sea and offers the ability to mount multi axis time on target saturation attacks. We had already discovered that trying to penetrate an even moderately effective modern IADS to attack targets directly was becoming suicidal, particularly in an increasingly risk averse world. Instead we would most often hit targets within the IADS from outside using Storm Shadow and Tomahawk. On the subject of risk aversion, SPEAR Capability 3 and Storm Shadow both have modes where they fly to a safe point and crash if they don't acquire targets, whereas ALARM would land randomly and either explode or cause a UXO hazard. Now, better still, it would appear there is an anti radiation (jamming) capable version of SPEAR 3 in the pipeline.

I've seen some of her stuff on Twitter that's been retweeted by others. I confess, I didn't watch the whole thing, but what I did watch was the same old combination of glib smugness, cheap debating tricks and false dichotomy/adverse consequences/non sequitur argument that I've come to expect. I don't want to get into an inane nitpicky discussion around such stupidities as trying to define the exact percentage of scientists that agree climate change has a human causation or whether electric cars are more damaging to the environment than gasoline/diesel models. I'll pick up on one point though. "Can anyone in this room name one problem governments have solved?" Well, government underpins civilisation, imposing and enforcing laws that enable food to be grown, energy sources to be exploited, manufactured goods to be produced and distributed (usually by private companies) etc. It also enables defence from external and internal threats, and provides for infrastructure projects that do not have to be immediately profitable, yet benefit society. A road can be privately funded, but you are going to have to have laws to build the road to enable compulsory purchase of land. It also enforces public health measures (to some degree, even in the States) and compulsory education and standards around that education. If, today, you abolished government, it would not be long before your country descended into anarchy in which no coordinated economic activity would be possible - those of you not living in heavily fortified bunkers full of stockpiled food and ammunition would eventually starve or be killed by your neighbours. More likely, you would be invaded and taken over by a country or coalition thereof with a government on the pretext of trying to stabilise it and for the benefit of its citizens. Were that not to happen, eventually, new government would appear - it's part of the human condition. So, what has government done for us besides extending our lifespans and making us infinitely healthier safer and more prosperous than we would be without it? Now feel free to lapse into the same debating tricks and absurd arguments she did - you can start by pointing out that Communist China under Mao or Cambodia under Pol Pot is where government inevitably gets you if you don't have a cupboard full of AR15s, except that the overwhelming trends in the world today are in the opposite direction. Don't worry about facts - just make some ridiculous self-serving shit up. It's the FFZ way.

Soon they'll have to have someone hold a board up to tell them when it's safe to stop clapping the Supreme Orangeness.