Combat Reform Respect Thread: Only Real Experts Allowed

[Zachowon]

Greets Army Platoon on a Boarding Boat.

Hey y'all see that over there. That is the land. Y'all head that way. Boarding Teams is Boat Guy Turf.

We then tell you we cant swim like you seamen. we then laugh and have you take us to the land.

@Sailor.X, China becoming the US's rival won't be a thing for a few more decades, mostly due to the fact that their cash cow that is outsourcing is drying up and the fact that they're practically replacing their entire navy which is best described as 'green water' (i.e. coastal) for the most part.

The real problem is that Putin and associates want the USSR to come back and damn the costs to do so. For them, making everyone else agree that Russia must become the next Carthage as a best-case scenario for their defeat is acceptable for making Russia Great Again...

... without the current 'trade, or else' system in place, wars will become a thing again... and likely simply plunge the world into ceaseless war because that's how humans operate.

Russia is less of a threat then China is. Russia is willing to negotiate, and work with the US, and not claim things like a soldier brought Wu flu to their country.

The US as a favored trading partners days are gone and China killed it with Spying and the Wuhan Flu. We are not getting any containers from China at my warehouse. All of the suppliers have switched to Indonesia, India and Vietnam. That should tell you all you need to know.

Korea has a growing nationalism for their own building and non China countries.

Here's the thing, historically the situation always has been what you can't get by trade, you have to get by conquest. By keeping China in the system, you don't have to fight them because they are part of the system and thus have a vested interest in keeping the system.

If China pulls out of the system, it will go out and start conquering places. That is a matter of if, not when.

Yes and that we're also having a problem that physics has a say in capability too. For example, our missiles aren't going to get any smaller because we can't get the reactions that propel our missiles and rockets to react faster, so to get more range/bigger payload/better sensors/mix of the above/all of the above, you have to make the missile bigger.

We're not Battletech where we can quite literally make the missile's frame basically C4-grade non-reactive explosive. We have to fit the warhead into the missile.

It is a mater of When, not If.

Again we have Pacific Territories that are far away from the Mainland. American Samoa is an example. Our major military assets are very far away and would take several weeks to get into place. China is closer to them than the US Mainland is.

We only have so many ships and so many planes and we can't protect everywhere without ships on site stationed there. Having several wolf packs of Corvettes at these far flung islands will be cost effective in keeping them safe until a few Battlegroups can get on station.



Name one and I mean one war with a Modern Military that the PRC has won since it was formed. And no Tibet does not count. They have lost every single war they have started since the 1950s.

China is a paper tiger ready to fall apart the second it gets wet

 

[Marduk]

Again we have Pacific Territories that are far away from the Mainland. American Samoa is an example. Our major military assets are very far away and would take several weeks to get into place. China is closer to them than the US Mainland is.

We only have so many ships and so many planes and we can't protect everywhere without ships on site stationed there. Having several wolf packs of Corvettes at these far flung islands will be cost effective in keeping them safe until a few Battlegroups can get on station.

If you wanted effective ships for that you would still probably get something closer to frigates - because that would not be the kind of littoral warfare that Baltic or Mediterranean basin countries can design their many corvettes for - short distances to travel, short patrol deployments, and not so rough sea conditions. To protect them, it very much would take open ocean warfare capability, with the endurance and sea handling capabilities that it implies. So if you add that into a ship, plus decent surface warfare capability, plus decent ASW... You will get a frigate in the end, or at least something like the LCS (which is at the upper end of tonnage for corvettes), so why not just start the design there.
Small corvettes like Cyclone are a risky proposition when it comes to open warfare against a peer opponent, which is why most of the Cyclones now are stationed either in Bahrain, close to ME shenanigans with Iran, or in Florida, helping CG with drug interdiction.

 

[Husky_Khan]

Apparently Pierre Sprey passed away several months ago, late last year. August 4th, 2021 specifically at the age of 83.

 

[Husky_Khan]

Just to bump this important thread up, it appears that Lazerpig and some Twink named FighterTales (he's a military aviation YouTuber from Amerika) are forging a path for the future of real Combat Reform and designing the Mike Sparks of the future... in a video titled... Well...



This is actually an alternate history where the intrepid duo are forced to design the military vehicles that President Mike Sparks desires, including the aforementioned Gavin platform.

 

[GROGNARD]

I prefer the M113. 80k+ produced, still in active service around the world.
Everything a Brad can do, but better.
Proof that the sequel is worse than the Original.

M113 armored personnel carrier - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

'Tis yet another Cold War warrior, like the B52, that will serve the grandsons of its original crews.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

I prefer the M113. 80k+ produced, still in active service around the world.
Everything a Brad can do, but better.
Proof that the sequel is worse than the Original.

M113 armored personnel carrier - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

'Tis yet another Cold War warrior, like the B52, that will serve the grandsons of its original crews.

The M113 lacks the mobility necessary to keep up with Abrams and Bradley based forces, and also has no NBC protection, inferior armor protection, minimal armament, and finally is bereft of modern communications and battlefield awareness features. The M113's sole advantages are that it's a cheap, mechanically reliable old clunker with a generous troop capacity.

The M113 is "still in active service" in limited support roles and/or limited capability forces. It hasn't been in modern frontline service for over a quarter century at this point.

 

[Zachowon]

I prefer the M113. 80k+ produced, still in active service around the world.
Everything a Brad can do, but better.
Proof that the sequel is worse than the Original.

M113 armored personnel carrier - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

'Tis yet another Cold War warrior, like the B52, that will serve the grandsons of its original crews.

I was gonna comment but Shadow beat me to it.

The M113 lacks the mobility necessary to keep up with Abrams and Bradley based forces, and also has no NBC protection, inferior armor protection, minimal armament, and finally is bereft of modern communications and battlefield awareness features. The M113's sole advantages are that it's a cheap, mechanically reliable old clunker with a generous troop capacity.

The M113 is "still in active service" in limited support roles and/or limited capability forces. It hasn't been in modern frontline service for over a quarter century at this point.

But to add, the M113 is an APC that was solely for transport, where as the Bradley is an IFV.
The new thing the military is making is an APC version if the Bradley with better armor then the 113 and better NBC protection

 

[Husky_Khan]

We do have a thread in the War College already which is basically a M113 Gavin Respect Thread.

Combat Reform Respect Thread: Only Real Experts Allowed

Quite a few people are idiots when it comes to this and believes Sparky and Co. and your post slightly implies that SPAAGs were abandoned in the first place. It is a situation that has been slowly happening for a while now. I wouldn't be surprised if AHEAD style ammunition proliferates to the...

www.the-sietch.com

 

[Marduk]

are they producing new hulls or fitting out existing hulls?

Both.

BAE Systems renews US contract to produce more Bradley fighting vehicles - Army Technology

The renewed contract has increased in value and will see BAE Systems continue its production of Bradley armoured fighting vehicles until 2025.

www.army-technology.com

The M113 lacks the mobility necessary to keep up with Abrams and Bradley based forces, and also has no NBC protection, inferior armor protection, minimal armament, and finally is bereft of modern communications and battlefield awareness features. The M113's sole advantages are that it's a cheap, mechanically reliable old clunker with a generous troop capacity.

The M113 is "still in active service" in limited support roles and/or limited capability forces. It hasn't been in modern frontline service for over a quarter century at this point.

M113 handled the mobility issues somehow for decades, NBC protection was an option in Cold War models yet is not used actively much now, it had the same firepower basic AMPV will have (.50 pintle mount). I think maintenance unification and protection features are the real reason.
AMPV has even more than normal Bradley. Add modern electronics, especially prospective defenses against drones and ATGMs, and there's simply no way to give M113 equivalent features, it doesn't have the internal volume a turretless Bradley hull does.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

M113 handled the mobility issues somehow for decades, NBC protection was an option in Cold War models yet is not used actively much now, it had the same firepower basic AMPV will have (.50 pintle mount). I think maintenance unification and protection features are the real reason.
AMPV has even more than normal Bradley. Add modern electronics, especially prospective defenses against drones and ATGMs, and there's simply no way to give M113 equivalent features, it doesn't have the internal volume a turretless Bradley hull does.

"It used to be adequate" does not make it adequate today, just as propeller powered biplanes that flew at 100 MPH were once also adequate.

The M113 was adequately mobile for the old style of mechanized warfare that was based on WWII combat experience plus the limited technological evolution of the early Cold War era. This was understood to no longer be enough by the 1960s, especially after the Soviet Union fielded the revolutionary BMP-1 infantry fighting vehicle in 1966 and their client states used it in the Yom Kippur War of 1973. That's the real reason -- as opposed to the hilarious but completely false story told in the "Pentagon Wars" movie -- that the Bradley program radically transformed from an M113 style box-on-treads to having a turret and chain gun and TOW missiles.

During the 1991 Gulf War, the inadequacy of the M113 was dramatically showcased as M113-equipped support units literally could not keep up with the highly mobile warfare carried out by the Abrams and Bradley on our side, and the T-72 tanks and BMPs on the Iraqi side.

 

[Marduk]

"It used to be adequate" does not make it adequate today, just as propeller powered biplanes that flew at 100 MPH were once also adequate.

The M113 was adequately mobile for the old style of mechanized warfare that was based on WWII combat experience plus the limited technological evolution of the early Cold War era. This was understood to no longer be enough by the 1960s, especially after the Soviet Union fielded the revolutionary BMP-1 infantry fighting vehicle in 1966 and their client states used it in the Yom Kippur War of 1973. That's the real reason -- as opposed to the hilarious but completely false story told in the "Pentagon Wars" movie -- that the Bradley program radically transformed from an M113 style box-on-treads to having a turret and chain gun and TOW missiles.

During the 1991 Gulf War, the inadequacy of the M113 was dramatically showcased as M113-equipped support units literally could not keep up with the highly mobile warfare carried out by the Abrams and Bradley on our side, and the T-72 tanks and BMPs on the Iraqi side.

M113 and BMPs are totally different classes of vehicle, one is a battle taxi APC and the other is an IFV like Bradley. Soviets used their own "boxes on tracks" in form of MT-LB among other less common vehicles alongside BMPs, and all these vehicles are still considered useful to have in Ukraine.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

M113 and BMPs are totally different classes of vehicle, one is a battle taxi APC and the other is an IFV like Bradley. Soviets used their own "boxes on tracks" in form of MT-LB among other less common vehicles alongside BMPs, and all these vehicles are still considered useful to have in Ukraine.

As I said, the BMP-1 was a revolutionary design when it entered service in 1966; it was the first actual IFV, and in response the Bradley program was rather radically overhauled from being a new APC that would have basically been an evolutionary upgrade of the M113, to a completely different design that was the first Western IFV.

APCs are no longer useful vehicles on the battlefield, which is why M113s have not been used in their base APC form by any non-joke military for many years. The vehicles that remain in even limited service are either upgraded to be a poor man’s quasi IFV, or are M113-derived support vehicles that use the chassis for something other than an APC.

 

[Marduk]

As I said, the BMP-1 was a revolutionary design when it entered service in 1966; it was the first actual IFV, and in response the Bradley program was rather radically overhauled from being a new APC that would have basically been an evolutionary upgrade of the M113, to a completely different design that was the first Western IFV.

APCs are no longer useful vehicles on the battlefield, which is why M113s have not been used in their base APC form by any non-joke military for many years. The vehicles that remain in even limited service are either upgraded to be a poor man’s quasi IFV, or are M113-derived support vehicles that use the chassis for something other than an APC.

APCs are no longer sufficient for serious frontline duties, but i disagree that they are no longer useful. Lots and lots of countries still use them as bases for support vehicles or reserves, as rarely a major military can afford enough of usually more expensive IFV hulls for absolutely everything.
There's a whole lot of need for a variety of lightly armored support vehicles...
The AMPV is a nod towards that, as it takes away what makes Bradley an IFV (turret) and just makes it a relatively mobile and heavily armored APC hull ready for adaptation into support roles.
And if you count wheeled vehicles most armies cheap out even more by using wheeled APCs a lot, which are usually even more vulnerable and have additional terrain mobility issues from that.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

APCs are no longer sufficient for serious frontline duties, but i disagree that they are no longer useful. Lots and lots of countries still use them as bases for support vehicles or reserves, as rarely a major military can afford enough of usually more expensive IFV hulls for absolutely everything.
There's a whole lot of need for a variety of lightly armored support vehicles...
The AMPV is a nod towards that, as it takes away what makes Bradley an IFV (turret) and just makes it a relatively mobile and heavily armored APC hull ready for adaptation into support roles.
And if you count wheeled vehicles most armies cheap out even more by using wheeled APCs a lot, which are usually even more vulnerable and have additional terrain mobility issues from that.

By “lots and lots of countries”, you again mean second and third rate militaries that use them because they can’t afford modern equipment.

Wheeled APCs are not “cheaper” than M113s in the mind of anyone except Mike Sparks and his band of delusional Gavin-fanbois. They are actually widely acknowledged by pretty much every competent modern military as being the best mobility option for low intensity and high mobility roles, making them the natural choice for all APC roles all the way up to light IFVs.

 

[Zachowon]

Almost every nation in Europe used them at some point.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Almost every nation in Europe used them at some point.

Every modern military predominantly uses wheeled platforms for the APC role these days. It's tracks for full-fledged tanks and heavy IFVs, wheels for almost everything else, with light tracked vehicles pretty much being a leftover. Except, again, for Sparks' obsession.

 

[Zachowon]

Every modern military predominantly uses wheeled platforms for the APC role these days. It's tracks for full-fledged tanks and heavy IFVs, wheels for almost everything else, with light tracked vehicles pretty much being a leftover. Except, again, for Sparks' obsession.

They still use the 113 is various roles.

Most wheeled APCs have little to know protection either

 

[Marduk]

By “lots and lots of countries”, you again mean second and third rate militaries that use them because they can’t afford modern equipment.

Wheeled APCs are not “cheaper” than M113s in the mind of anyone except Mike Sparks and his band of delusional Gavin-fanbois. They are actually widely acknowledged by pretty much every competent modern military as being the best mobility option for low intensity and high mobility roles, making them the natural choice for all APC roles all the way up to light IFVs.

Mobility mismatch with tanks says not so fast. It's why USA is switching them to semi-heavy Bradley chassis based APC for support rather than just saying fuck it and getting some more Strykers.
Of course that applies only to competent armies that have much of armor units and plan to use them in places that the mobility mismatch affects, which is a tight filter.
That's how you get massive SK K200 park, Israel with massive M113 reserve park (special mention for their tank hull based heavy APCs), Taiwan's big CM-21 park, British FV430 series in huge number relative to their small army...

And yes, the major feature pulling decisionmakers to wheeled platforms is that they are logistically cheaper, being able to make better use of civilian wheeled vehicle part bases, skill bases, and often move around roads without transporters and with lower fuel consumption, which also means not having so many transporters and fuel support.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Mobility mismatch with tanks says not so fast. It's why USA is switching them to semi-heavy Bradley chassis based APC for support rather than just saying fuck it and getting some more Strykers.

That is a relatively limited use specialist design, and is *literally* a minor spinoff of exactly what I already said, "tracks for heavy IFVs".

And yes, the major feature pulling decisionmakers to wheeled platforms is that they are logistically cheaper, being able to make better use of civilian wheeled vehicle part bases, skill bases, and often move around roads without transporters and with lower fuel consumption, which also means not having so many transporters and fuel support.

Wheeled platforms are actually more survivable than tracked equivalents against mine and IED threats and have substantially superior mobility not only on roads but also in light off-road conditions.

They still use the 113 is various roles.

Most wheeled APCs have little to know protection either

Modern wheeled APCs with "little to no" armor protection are on par with the equally "little to no" armor protection of the 113, and are far more survivable against mines and IEDs.

Even in their heyday in the Vietnam War, there's a reason troops learned to build semi-permanent sandbag walls on TOP of M113s rather than riding inside as designed.

 

[Zachowon]

Rhe m113 sucks we agree on that.
But the idea of a heavy APC is more useful then a wheeled light one.