Posted on 05/06/2022 4:32:44 AM PDT by GonzoII
Western imperialist capitalist craigslist!
Btw, my post 2 was sarcastic, as is this one
Dog. Pig. Hyena! {Channelling allo, allo}
Makarov is a Rossiya super battleship. You can not see it with western eyes.
Btw, https://youtu.be/yzGqp3R4Mx4
The Neptune system has been manufactured in Ukraine for decades and they are fully capable of using it.
But yes, NATO has been providing high elevation surveillance data. Probably since the Russian incursions of Ukraine’s globally recognized borders since 2014.
Essentially they are watching hundreds of miles out from the border for signs of Russian incursion and sharing this data with the Ukrainians.
Russia already has full top down surveillance of Ukraine without limitations so it’s simply to make the fight fair and let the best man win...
I see the problem. No port holes. How are they supposed to see a missile coming.
Tanks have to be used correctly and in coordination with other services. Tanks need to mass quickly on a location that is not expecting to be the point of attack. The artillery prep must be effective. The attack aviation must be effective. The infantry support and infantry fighting vehicles must move in concert with the armor.
Without tanks, moving against strong enemy positions becomes more problematic. Tanks can be taken out with missiles and mines. Infantrymen can be taken out with shrapnel, snipers, mines, machine guns, automatic grenade launchers, and a whole laundry list of weapons.
Anti-drone drones may also limit the dominance of drones.
If it weren’t for Putin making 60 million a day selling oil he would be out of the war by now.
Joey don’t like Russia huh Moe.
I was thinking more large scale. Programmable unmanned drones for about $1,000 each (the government couldn’t build at this cost, but a smart businessman could). Army’s newest tank cost $6,000,000 each. That would be 6,000 drones per one tank cost.
You could send thousands of drones across enemy lines or at ships. Programmable drones don’t need to receive instructions individually. I seen amazing drone light shows with a hundred drones, adapt the technology to drone wars and it is scary.
As General von Mellenthin would say, “you think along big lines”. That is a compliment.
I have an original 1942 edition of VICTORY THROUGH AIR POWER, by Major Alexander P. De Seversky. The book makes the argument for spending money on aircraft with super ranges instead of aircraft carriers. He advocated bombing Japan from bases in Alaska. But just because the B19 had a range of 7000 miles does not mean it could be armed and bomb a city 3000 miles away and return successfully. The author was thinking that technology would advance ranges of aircraft rapidly, but it tended to advance gas guzzling too.
We don’t want to fall into the trap of “fighting the last war” with our future planning. We also need to be careful in thinking what future weapon systems will be decisive.
Note that a 1917 model BAR is obsolete due to weight and box magazine limitations. Still, if carried, it would be an effective weapon on the modern battlefield. A 1917 aircraft would have a tougher time.
Gov’t “cost” will have a 10x multiplier. But even to use your evaluation, one can’t ARM (to hurt a tank or ship) a drone for $1000. Can’t even build one capable of carrying a high tech weapon for 10x that, I’d guess. But then again, maybe you don’t need to. Send a swarm of 200 drones at a ship. Only 2 are actually armed. Can the ship pick them out?
That’s a HOOT! Not taught in most history courses, I’ll warrant!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.