OT:USMC junks their tanks (smart breath edition)

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

They naysayers in the thread seem to overlook the fact that the greatest weakness with modern MBTs is that they require a human crew.

An M1A2 can sit on a hilltop and have RPG's fired at it all day pretty without a complaint. The human crew, less so.

Then there's the cost-savings found from down-sizing multi-man tank crews to smaller teams controlling unmanned AFVs, as well as the advantages of cutting out the crew from the AFV design process (no crew = more space = more engine/armour/guns).

As Obvert points out, the transition to unmanned AFVs is an evolution that makes sense.

Yeah...no. Bush lost is shit when he found RPG-7Vs had been supplied to Iraqi resistance about 15 years ago.

15 years ago. I can assure you-M1A2es have not kept pace. Obsolete.

According to you, the United States should unilaterally disarm. Sieg Heil, comrade.

[rsallen64]

Funny how even though 15 year old RPGs supposedly made tanks obsolete, EVERY major power in the world today continues to develop, produce, and field tanks. Seems all the educated people running all those ground forces are not as smart as some of our forum members. [;)]

[obvert]

Again, all of these arguments are nice, but the military planners and companies designing these things have spent a good deal of time figuring out how to combat ALL of the things you've just brought up and more that you haven't. For example, most combat missions now flown are done by unmanned drones. This is happening.

Ground units are already in service in multiple militaries. If hackers were the biggest threat they would be equally viable taking over systems for manned vehicles/planes/ships as well.

In addition, miniturization and stealth units will also feature prominently in future military campaigns. All the way down to flying insect sized drones and bug sized crawling vehicles.

So. The Marines look like they are thinking ahead. I'm sure China and Russia are as well, so we'd better be doing it too.

[Rusty1961]

ORIGINAL: rsallen64

Funny how even though 15 year old RPGs supposedly made tanks obsolete, EVERY major power in the world today continues to develop, produce, and field tanks. Seems all the educated people running all those ground forces are not as smart as some of our forum members. [;)]

And some, like the Marines, have found religion and are scrapping the tanks.

Drones and ATGMs now rule the battlefield.

That is why the Marines woke up.

[Rusty1961]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

They naysayers in the thread seem to overlook the fact that the greatest weakness with modern MBTs is that they require a human crew.

An M1A2 can sit on a hilltop and have RPG's fired at it all day pretty without a complaint. The human crew, less so.

Then there's the cost-savings found from down-sizing multi-man tank crews to smaller teams controlling unmanned AFVs, as well as the advantages of cutting out the crew from the AFV design process (no crew = more space = more engine/armour/guns).

As Obvert points out, the transition to unmanned AFVs is an evolution that makes sense.

Yeah...no. Bush lost is shit when he found RPG-7Vs had been supplied to Iraqi resistance about 15 years ago.

15 years ago. I can assure you-M1A2es have not kept pace. Obsolete.

According to you, the United States should unilaterally disarm. Sieg Heil, comrade.

Hey, you're the one with the communist avatar. You think this through?

[Rusty1961]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUxpHGl4SHI

Video from Armenian fighting. Drones dominate the battlefield. Drones and lase the target and then guide 130mm arty on to targets deep behind the lines.

Tanks can't do shi* about it but hide.

[Lowpe]

You guys got me thinking about this, and I will ask my sons what they think about armor. Haven't talked to them about armor in a long time. One of them has been in combat recently, and most recently a trainer at Fort Irwin -- and I suspect he will probably think it is ok for the Marine Corp to do it (smaller, specialized)...but that there are plenty of solid applications that armor solves the problem for in the Army. My guess is he would prefer to fight an enemy that didn't field tanks while his side did....but we shall see.

I do know that Joint readiness training switched several years back to feature larger, more traditional clashes and away from insurgency models-- I think the Army was at the time prepping for a conflict in Syria which thankfully never came to be -- although I do know several young man that did fight there.

[Rusty1961]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

You guys got me thinking about this, and I will ask my sons what they think about armor. Haven't talked to them about armor in a long time. One of them has been in combat recently, and most recently a trainer at Fort Irwin -- and I suspect he will probably think it is ok for the Marine Corp to do it (smaller, specialized)...but that there are plenty of solid applications that armor solves the problem for in the Army. My guess is he would prefer to fight an enemy that didn't field tanks while his side did....but we shall see.

I do know that Joint readiness training switched several years back to feature larger, more traditional clashes and away from insurgency models-- I think the Army was at the time prepping for a conflict in Syria which thankfully never came to be -- although I do know several young man that did fight there.

"Larger traditional clashes...". Huh? What hypothetical army shall we further make American citizens debt-serfs to to fight?

I mean this shit costs lots and lots of MONEY. We are broke. Let Europe defend itself and bring our boys home and save money.

It's like the insanity of "Defending South Korea". You have to be tripping on retard-pills to be ignorant of SK massive military advantage over NK.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

You guys got me thinking about this, and I will ask my sons what they think about armor. Haven't talked to them about armor in a long time. One of them has been in combat recently, and most recently a trainer at Fort Irwin -- and I suspect he will probably think it is ok for the Marine Corp to do it (smaller, specialized)...but that there are plenty of solid applications that armor solves the problem for in the Army. My guess is he would prefer to fight an enemy that didn't field tanks while his side did....but we shall see.

I do know that Joint readiness training switched several years back to feature larger, more traditional clashes and away from insurgency models-- I think the Army was at the time prepping for a conflict in Syria which thankfully never came to be -- although I do know several young man that did fight there.

The Marines are ditching their current tanks. This doesn't mean they are giving up on armored fighting vehicles. My bet is they already have an array of specialized smaller manned and unmanned vehicles that can be flown in and dropped, swim in on their own, and won't either break the bank or put crews at risk in the same way as traditional armour.

This is moving quickly. I know someone here that works in transport focusing on cars, and he says self-driving taxis will be common in five years in the UK. If it's in the civilian sector, then those technologies will be far ahead in the military sector.

[Rusty1961]

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

You guys got me thinking about this, and I will ask my sons what they think about armor. Haven't talked to them about armor in a long time. One of them has been in combat recently, and most recently a trainer at Fort Irwin -- and I suspect he will probably think it is ok for the Marine Corp to do it (smaller, specialized)...but that there are plenty of solid applications that armor solves the problem for in the Army. My guess is he would prefer to fight an enemy that didn't field tanks while his side did....but we shall see.

I do know that Joint readiness training switched several years back to feature larger, more traditional clashes and away from insurgency models-- I think the Army was at the time prepping for a conflict in Syria which thankfully never came to be -- although I do know several young man that did fight there.

The Marines are ditching their current tanks. This doesn't mean they are giving up on armored fighting vehicles. My bet is they already have an array of specialized smaller manned and unmanned vehicles that can be flown in and dropped, swim in on their own, and won't either break the bank or put crews at risk in the same way as traditional armour.

This is moving quickly. I know someone here that works in transport focusing on cars, and he says self-driving taxis will be common in five years in the UK. If it's in the civilian sector, then those technologies will be far ahead in the military sector.

Exactly.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

You guys got me thinking about this, and I will ask my sons what they think about armor. Haven't talked to them about armor in a long time. One of them has been in combat recently, and most recently a trainer at Fort Irwin -- and I suspect he will probably think it is ok for the Marine Corp to do it (smaller, specialized)...but that there are plenty of solid applications that armor solves the problem for in the Army. My guess is he would prefer to fight an enemy that didn't field tanks while his side did....but we shall see.

I do know that Joint readiness training switched several years back to feature larger, more traditional clashes and away from insurgency models-- I think the Army was at the time prepping for a conflict in Syria which thankfully never came to be -- although I do know several young man that did fight there.

If he was a trainer at Irwin, was he in the Blackhorse Regiment?

As far as the US Marines giving up their tanks, did they get an agreement from the Army to provide tanks on demand when they need them? That would be important.

[Rusty1961]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

They naysayers in the thread seem to overlook the fact that the greatest weakness with modern MBTs is that they require a human crew.

An M1A2 can sit on a hilltop and have RPG's fired at it all day pretty without a complaint. The human crew, less so.

Then there's the cost-savings found from down-sizing multi-man tank crews to smaller teams controlling unmanned AFVs, as well as the advantages of cutting out the crew from the AFV design process (no crew = more space = more engine/armour/guns).

As Obvert points out, the transition to unmanned AFVs is an evolution that makes sense.

Yeah...no. Bush lost is shit when he found RPG-7Vs had been supplied to Iraqi resistance about 15 years ago.

15 years ago. I can assure you-M1A2es have not kept pace. Obsolete.

According to you, the United States should unilaterally disarm. Sieg Heil, comrade.

Disgusting how Matrix tolerates an open and blatant neo-Nazi such as yourself to spew your venom.

Matrix, you allow this?

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

You guys got me thinking about this, and I will ask my sons what they think about armor. Haven't talked to them about armor in a long time. One of them has been in combat recently, and most recently a trainer at Fort Irwin -- and I suspect he will probably think it is ok for the Marine Corp to do it (smaller, specialized)...but that there are plenty of solid applications that armor solves the problem for in the Army. My guess is he would prefer to fight an enemy that didn't field tanks while his side did....but we shall see.

I do know that Joint readiness training switched several years back to feature larger, more traditional clashes and away from insurgency models-- I think the Army was at the time prepping for a conflict in Syria which thankfully never came to be -- although I do know several young man that did fight there.

If he was a trainer at Irwin, was he in the Blackhorse Regiment?

As far as the US Marines giving up their tanks, did they get an agreement from the Army to provide tanks on demand when they need them? That would be important.

So, I talked to him, and he is ok with the Marines giving up their large, heavy crew served tanks...so then I asked will the Army follow the Marines lead...and he laughed and said emphatically no.

Being the good little troll and armchair warrior with no actual experience that is not from a keyboard or book I opined: but aren't large, heavy crew served tanks very vulnerable to missiles, to drones, to which he replied laughingly.....

No.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

You guys got me thinking about this, and I will ask my sons what they think about armor. Haven't talked to them about armor in a long time. One of them has been in combat recently, and most recently a trainer at Fort Irwin -- and I suspect he will probably think it is ok for the Marine Corp to do it (smaller, specialized)...but that there are plenty of solid applications that armor solves the problem for in the Army. My guess is he would prefer to fight an enemy that didn't field tanks while his side did....but we shall see.

I do know that Joint readiness training switched several years back to feature larger, more traditional clashes and away from insurgency models-- I think the Army was at the time prepping for a conflict in Syria which thankfully never came to be -- although I do know several young man that did fight there.

If he was a trainer at Irwin, was he in the Blackhorse Regiment?

As far as the US Marines giving up their tanks, did they get an agreement from the Army to provide tanks on demand when they need them? That would be important.

So, I talked to him, and he is ok with the Marines giving up their large, heavy crew served tanks...so then I asked will the Army follow the Marines lead...and he laughed and said emphatically no.

Being the good little troll and armchair warrior with no actual experience that is not from a keyboard or book I opined: but aren't large, heavy crew served tanks very vulnerable to missiles, to drones, to which he replied laughingly.....

No.

Lowpe,

This entire issue just screams to me that a fundamental rethinking of the use of the Marines is at the root of this change. A move away from using the Marines in the frontline of the battlefield, towards a light infantry force tasked for mobile, amphibious operations able to be quickly deployed overseas. Heavy tanks reduce mobility, occupy valuable ship space and increase the logistical tail. The heavy duty fighting would still be undertaken by the army, with their tanks.

Alfred

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe




If he was a trainer at Irwin, was he in the Blackhorse Regiment?

As far as the US Marines giving up their tanks, did they get an agreement from the Army to provide tanks on demand when they need them? That would be important.

So, I talked to him, and he is ok with the Marines giving up their large, heavy crew served tanks...so then I asked will the Army follow the Marines lead...and he laughed and said emphatically no.

Being the good little troll and armchair warrior with no actual experience that is not from a keyboard or book I opined: but aren't large, heavy crew served tanks very vulnerable to missiles, to drones, to which he replied laughingly.....

No.

Lowpe,

This entire issue just screams to me that a fundamental rethinking of the use of the Marines is at the root of this change. A move away from using the Marines in the frontline of the battlefield, towards a light infantry force tasked for mobile, amphibious operations able to be quickly deployed overseas. Heavy tanks reduce mobility, occupy valuable ship space and increase the logistical tail. The heavy duty fighting would still be undertaken by the army, with their tanks.

Alfred

I saw a picture of a tank that drove over an IED inside a car. The driver wanted to destroy it so it would not hurt anyone.

How many M1 tanks were actually destroyed by Iraqi forces? How many were deployed? What as the percentage of losses? Those are the questions that need to be answered.

Maybe the Marines are reconfiguring their units to be more like the WWII Marine Raiders. If so, is the US Army expanding their armoured forces to compensate? If so, are these new armoured forces going to be working with the Marines? Are the Marine tankers going to stay in the Marines or to be allowed, if they should desire it, to transfer to the Army? That is, if the Army will take them!

ARMY => Ain't Ready for Marines Yet! [;)]

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

You guys got me thinking about this, and I will ask my sons what they think about armor. Haven't talked to them about armor in a long time. One of them has been in combat recently, and most recently a trainer at Fort Irwin -- and I suspect he will probably think it is ok for the Marine Corp to do it (smaller, specialized)...but that there are plenty of solid applications that armor solves the problem for in the Army. My guess is he would prefer to fight an enemy that didn't field tanks while his side did....but we shall see.

I do know that Joint readiness training switched several years back to feature larger, more traditional clashes and away from insurgency models-- I think the Army was at the time prepping for a conflict in Syria which thankfully never came to be -- although I do know several young man that did fight there.

"Larger traditional clashes...". Huh? What hypothetical army shall we further make American citizens debt-serfs to to fight?

I mean this shit costs lots and lots of MONEY. We are broke. Let Europe defend itself and bring our boys home and save money.

It's like the insanity of "Defending South Korea". You have to be tripping on retard-pills to be ignorant of SK massive military advantage over NK.

We're not broke, though.

Sovereign nation finances are not analogous to household finances. I know that's hard for nearly everyone to understand, but it's the simple truth.


There are other valid arguments for not fighting overseas (just as there are valid arguments to do so), but "we are broke" doesn't hold water.

[fcooke]

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

You guys got me thinking about this, and I will ask my sons what they think about armor. Haven't talked to them about armor in a long time. One of them has been in combat recently, and most recently a trainer at Fort Irwin -- and I suspect he will probably think it is ok for the Marine Corp to do it (smaller, specialized)...but that there are plenty of solid applications that armor solves the problem for in the Army. My guess is he would prefer to fight an enemy that didn't field tanks while his side did....but we shall see.

I do know that Joint readiness training switched several years back to feature larger, more traditional clashes and away from insurgency models-- I think the Army was at the time prepping for a conflict in Syria which thankfully never came to be -- although I do know several young man that did fight there.

The Marines are ditching their current tanks. This doesn't mean they are giving up on armored fighting vehicles. My bet is they already have an array of specialized smaller manned and unmanned vehicles that can be flown in and dropped, swim in on their own, and won't either break the bank or put crews at risk in the same way as traditional armour.

This is moving quickly. I know someone here that works in transport focusing on cars, and he says self-driving taxis will be common in five years in the UK. If it's in the civilian sector, then those technologies will be far ahead in the military sector.

I don't know....the idea of getting in a black cab in London and not having a driver with the 'Knowledge' makes me a bit seasick. And would help keep destroying the quaintness of the place (though saying that some of those US - like tower 'buildings' have already got well on their way to doing that). And Iraq was an outright military win largely driven by the Air Force, Army, Navy and Marines. But then subject to the same problems as Vietnam - (no political plan). That issue does not change with manned vs unmanned. If you a US fix the real problems and vote in November for people with a brain.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

They naysayers in the thread seem to overlook the fact that the greatest weakness with modern MBTs is that they require a human crew.

An M1A2 can sit on a hilltop and have RPG's fired at it all day pretty without a complaint. The human crew, less so.

Then there's the cost-savings found from down-sizing multi-man tank crews to smaller teams controlling unmanned AFVs, as well as the advantages of cutting out the crew from the AFV design process (no crew = more space = more engine/armour/guns).

As Obvert points out, the transition to unmanned AFVs is an evolution that makes sense.

I wasn't saying we should not try out the concept, but let's not phase out all human operated equipment too quickly. War is full of unexpected situations and no machine is as adaptable as a well-trained human.

Battleships are still relevant thinking. Wrong.

Let's stop for a moment and look at this non sequitur (again) from Rusty1961.

Posts from mind_messing and from BBfanboy are quoted. Neither one makes any reference to battleships. Both are essentially addressing the human factor in potential modern military conflicts. Neither is advocating future reliance on old military technology.

So what exactly is the contribution from Rusty19061 to the interchange between mind_messing and BBfanboy? He effectively disparages both of them on the basis of introducing a non sequitur, an idea which neither is proposing. As usual, being unable to contribute anything meaningful to the discussion, Rusty1961 just invents a criticism. It appears very much to be the sort of "contribution" to a debate which someone, who lacks the intellectual capability to participate in the debate on an equal basis, would make.

Alfred

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961





Yeah...no. Bush lost is shit when he found RPG-7Vs had been supplied to Iraqi resistance about 15 years ago.

15 years ago. I can assure you-M1A2es have not kept pace. Obsolete.

According to you, the United States should unilaterally disarm. Sieg Heil, comrade.

Disgusting how Matrix tolerates an open and blatant neo-Nazi such as yourself to spew your venom.

Matrix, you allow this?

So Rusty1961 believes he has uncovered "an open and blatant neo-Nazi" posting on the forum. Let's subject this claim to some basic independent logical analysis, because Rusty1961 certainly fails the test in that area.

1. The object of the claim has not presented a single comment which indicates he is personally in favour of, or is an adherent to. Nazi ideology. Quite the contrary the object (ie RangerJoe) is making the point that he believes that on the basis of Rusty1961's comments (admittedly an inference), Rusty1961 has some attachment to that ideology. Accordingly, the correct response from Rusty1961 would have been to make the record straight regarding where he stands on that ideology, not to instead hurl such an accusation, without evidence, at RangerJoe.

2. By directly querying why Matrix has allowed this situation, Rusty1961 has once again just invented a "fact". There is in fact no evidence that the forum moderator, who is the Matrix forum representative, has not already seen the exchange and concluded that no Matrix policy has been breached by RangerJoe. Alternatively, it is possible the moderator, who is not a paid full time employee of Matrix, has not yet read this thread. In which case there is nothing at all preventing Rusty1961 from contacting the moderator to complain. Of course were he to do that, he would have to present the facts which sustain the claim, a task which point 1 above demonstrates would be rather difficult to achieve.

Alfred

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

...We're not broke, though.

Sovereign nation finances are not analogous to household finances. I know that's hard for nearly everyone to understand, but it's the simple truth.


There are other valid arguments for not fighting overseas (just as there are valid arguments to do so), but "we are broke" doesn't hold water.

Do you think it is really wise to introduce Modern Monetary Theory to the "debate". Doing so will just short the brain electrics of you know who.[:)]

Alfred