history

[peak mango]

Yup. I mean expensive RAP rounds to get your arty out of the engagement envelope, smarter systems to minimize the shoot and scoot times.. lots of optimizations.

I can talk about link later. But i won't. But it isn't real time in the sense of cuing a slewing weapon.

[desert agate]

Only with incompetent militaries

No NATO army would allow such a thing

[peak mango]

Agreed. But let's say that towed arty is pretty much dead at this point. IMHO. Or at least dying. Or a niche use case.

[desert agate]

I sincerely disagree

Mobile artillery is expensive and not always the right tool for the job

[brittle glacier]

You could break it all down to small components. Guns(RWS with IR or Radar sensors for “terminal” guidance), sensors(drones), directors(self explanatory) all of which can be mounted on one or multiple vehicles.

[peak mango]

... heh. NATO as a whole, but individual NATO nations? Lots of holes.

[desert agate]

Yes it will be your main asset on the most active areas of the front, but lower intensity combat further along the line will still need artillery and dragging your limited number of self propelled systems from your main areas of the front is not going to do you any favours

[peak mango]

If the job is pushing it out of the shelter, bang, pushing it back into the shelter .. yeah, towed has a place.

[desert agate]

Fortunately NATO is a collective alliance where each nation can make up for the shortcomings of another

[peak mango]

Tbh, I get to play pessimist and even the NATO collective has a small UAS problem.

[desert agate]

We’re still seeing towed systems used to great effect in drone dense combat environments in the [CONFLICT]

[desert agate]

Agreed but it’s a challenge that being worked through

I don’t think small UAS systems will be as great a threat for a NATO army as they are in [CONFLICT] but still something NATO armies need to be better at countering

[brittle glacier]

Mmmmmm air fryer

[desert agate]

Fibre optic FPV drones are basically useless on a mobile battlefield

Very good on a mostly static front but NATO wouldn’t allow itself to be in that situation

And NATO has a lot of very capable jamming systems

[brittle glacier]

“The boys are digging trenches? Clusterbomb the enemy HQ and redirect a Cav element.”

[peak mango]

I prefer leonidas tbh

[peak mango]

Very much a limited role, and less in the last year.

[peak mango]

Agreed .. for now. That said, tbh, seeing a thousand coordinated (small quad) drones out of a cargo container simultaneously does not make me happy at all.

[peak mango]

Mainly because of high end air dominance.

[brittle glacier]

LASERS!!!

[peak mango]

Even so, see the Tower 22 strike. :/

[peak mango]

Damnit, where's my 'how AESA works' gif ...

[brittle glacier]

https://tenor.com/view/laser-house-disco-party-gif-18045868938715962896

[peak mango]

https://packaged-media.redd.it/2mkr64seg39a1/pb/m2-res_1080p.mp4?m=DASHPlaylist.mpd&v=1&e=1760778000&s=f5da3a662d4fce68a4585a5b877e9e463807ebad

[brittle glacier]

Yoink

[brittle glacier]

What if we put a 37mm Maxim on an AA mount and fed it canister shells?

[subtle prawn]

Towed guns are still used for avalanche control here

[zealous gull]

Spotted at work today, anyone know who this is?

[subtle prawn]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Fitzgerald

[zealous gull]

Oooooh thats an unique one

Wonder if the OOW got any ptsd from seeing all the cargo ships everywhere

Better photo

Driving thru the Singapore strait

[shrewd pecan]

https://youtu.be/EoKmcTS6xy8?si=fwuaDS50cIDFPIz_

[narrow rover]

"SPEAK AMERICAN"

[subtle prawn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giCLCHA2ztA

[zealous gull]

Spotted another US (?) warship coming thru

Looks kinda weird though

[desert agate]

Well of course it looks weird because that's a Murasame class

Or a Takanami

In fact that is a Takanami because it has the 127mm gun

Hard to see the hull number but it may be Suzunami

[zealous gull]

Geez they’re far from home then

Wonder what everyone’s doing in Singapore

Spotted a few Malaysian warships go past too

[shrewd pecan]

The US has naval maintenance facilities in Singapore and usually does regular exercises/training with the Singaporeans

[zealous gull]

The fun things you spot while your ship is broken and at anchor

[shrewd pecan]

In terms the Japanese they usually do trainings and exercises with Singapore and a bunch of other ASEAN countries

[zealous gull]

Makes sense

[desert agate]

Just your normal regional deployments really

[desert agate]

RAN?

[zealous gull]

Kinda

[desert agate]

Border force...

[zealous gull]

On a civvy ship doing a bit more navigation training

since the NT coast doesn’t quite cut it with dealing with traffic

[desert agate]

Ah my 2 favourite major maritime sea lanes
The Timor and Arafura seas

Fair enough tbh, I’ll probably be doing the same in a few years

[zealous gull]

Went through there last month and I think I saw two other vessels the whole time

Just feels like I’m at the edge of the world

[zealous gull]

[junior trench]

more like "suppress the enemy rearline and frontline defenders, then roll directly over them with combat engineering bulldozers leading the armor and infantry to fill in the trenches outright rather than fighting through them"

when you have actual mechanized combat engineering capability, your solution to trench warfare is to remove the trench from the warfare

[narrow rover]

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1966/may/soviet-operations-war-japan-august-1945

It's quite surprising (and unsurprising, like ffs its the Russian navy) that the USSR had some trouble against essentially surrendered Japanese forces at the Kuriles and Korea

[remote monolith]

Oh their landing at Sumshu was terrible

[narrow rover]

Roosevelt might have had a plan in mind (before he died), but I really think the Soviets shouldn't have been allowed to occupy THAT much of Asia
Like Northern Manchuria and South Sakhalin (maybe) are the only regions where the Russians historically had presence

[brittle glacier]

*It is okay Ivan, they of have no more supplies!"
"Serge!!! our boat is sink!"
"What happen?!?"
"One of crew pulled cartoon drain plug out of hull."

[narrow rover]

And because the US had such a strong presence in Asia, they might have just done as asked... maybe

[brittle glacier]

The Russian Navy in a nutshell.

[narrow rover]

Yea if it was done like a day or two earlier it would have failed

I sort of wish that happened, would have had some interesting butterfly effects on the cold war

[brittle glacier]

We coulda have also just given significant airfroces to the nationalists...

Imagine the ChiComs trying to stage an attack when the KMT are running endless trains of B25s on them.

[narrow rover]

Hard to get aircraft parts to China before the war ended

[brittle glacier]

Aye, fair.

[narrow rover]

Tbh it's probably 50% due to a lot of US officials in China just not liking the Nationalist government
(Stilwell, Gauss, etc)

A lot of those guys got absolutely crucified when the red scare happened in the 50s

Because, tbh, a lot did buy into CCP propaganda

[brittle glacier]

Fucking disgusting.

[narrow rover]

But also the Nationalist government was an unwieldy pile of dogshit

Honestly if it wasn't Mao I assume someone would have risen up against Chiang in the aftermath of the war because the conscription methods were
Well
If I were to design something to make my population as mad at me as possible, I'd do exactly that

[junior trench]

I mean

there's also recency bias and negativity bias in play

in that the KMT were basically the only ones actually doing anything, no matter how clumsily

which makes them look worse to the average person than the people cynically sitting on their asses

not expending effort and resources

it's why even when a crisis is handled amazingly well, the incumbent powers that be will still get lambasted for anything and everything possible

[narrow rover]

Yes
Chiangs enemies could blame him for everything

Either case I haven't seen a comprehensive rundown of what failed the nationalists

We're at the point where academics are just about reading Chiangs diary

Rana Mitter etc have somewhat tried to rehabilitate Chiangs image but there's a lot of people that say it's bull shitte

Either way I can't for the life of me imagine the development path for KMT China being all that much different from IRL China

Same reason I can't imagine superpower Indonesia or Brazil overtaking the US in the 2000s

Like how much history can you even change, even though people at the top will change the vast majority of the Chinese population is well, the same

Potential changes I can see is the border dispute between JP and CN (Senkakus) being resolved better (IF China finds oil there before the Okinawa reversion, timeline of which might change) and Korea maybe unifying

Economically Chiang did better in Taiwan than he did on the mainland but a lot of that was using the infrastructure left at Taiwan (it was virtually untouched by the war), so a lot changes if he's still on the mainland

[peak mango]

Minus the cultural revolution. The 'default state' (imho) of chinese culture tends to be family capitalist/small biz centric, with some ambitions towards government service (culture of testing, etc).

[brittle glacier]

The sexiest of French boats.

[desert agate]

Cool can’t open this channel in public anymore

[narrow rover]

Well not explicitly that but a lot of what Mao did was really bizarre

[brittle glacier]

YOU ARE IN AN AZUR LANE SERVER!!!

[shrewd pecan]

https://vxtwitter.com/DRatka1/status/1979519698745090289

Damian Ratka (@DRatka1)

To rozwiązanie od @GD_LandSystems jest naprawdę bardzo mądrze zaprojektowane. Moduł wyrzutni nie narusza konstrukcji wieży, nie ogranicza zapasu amunicji do armaty. Po prostu moduł wyrzutni zastępuje zasobnik transportowy zamocowany na burcie wieży.

QRT: 2805662
GDLS “PERCH” - turret sponson bin launcher for 1x Switchblade 600 & 3 x SB300.

vxTwitter / fixvx · Oct 18, 2025, 12:07 PM

[autumn sorrel]

I mean, sure. I still prefer the German approach more, make the gun an autoloader and the 4th crew member will be drone operator.

<@&472236072743600148>

[shrewd pecan]

The entire idea of loitering munitions on tanks is stupid

You’re sacrificing space for munitions and equipment for 2 disposable drones

[autumn sorrel]

Well, I wouldn't mind it but the problem is still the workload. It is like gun launched ATGM, sound good on paper until you realize that the gunner need to guide it and the tank need to be stationary.

[shrewd pecan]

vs just having a dedicated platform for carrying the drone

[shrewd pecan]

Gun launched ATGMs make far more sense at this point

The technology is there to make them both F&F and reasonably capable of NLOS capability

you also don’t need to sacrifice half the equipment storage or bustle rack to carry them

[autumn sorrel]

Hmm, would it make more sense if it is for the Platoon commander tank? And I don't mean loitering munition but scout UAV.

[shrewd pecan]

Why aren’t you just offloading this to a APC or jeep accompanying platoon or company command

in terms of the 4th crewmember as a drone commander type gear that shit only makes sense if we’re at the point where a tank company is primarily unmanned vehicles with a few manned ones

[autumn sorrel]

Platoon coordination? I mean, I don't know American structure but in my nation, Tank Platoon commander is in one of the tank and he must rely on either accompany infantry or recon group that attached for mission for situation awareness.

So it would be nice to have some quadcopter over head and feed information directly for the commander.

[shrewd pecan]

You don’t need a 4th crewmember for this

[autumn sorrel]

Yeah, I know French have their fancy integration system to coordinate their tanks but not everyone can do it like them.

[shrewd pecan]

Offload it to a dedicated command vehicle or IFV configured as a command vehicle

[autumn sorrel]

Yeah, about that. Going to take quite a few year till they actually come up with a command IFV concept. Plus it just going to be for Company level command tbh.

[shrewd pecan]

tanks are there to be tanks

smacking all of these extra capabilities to them makes zero sense over smacking it on platforms capable of being more multipurpose like a IFV or dedicated platforms that are gonna be far better at the job

[autumn sorrel]

Careful, they going to sell the multipurpose platform concept again

One chassis and multiple mission pod/configs

[shrewd pecan]

:/ take a Boxer or Lynx smack a sensor mast and a communications mast on there and then like 2-3 control consoles in the back with enough room for 3-4 scout dismounts and you have a vehicle that can serve as a effective drone control platform and reconnaissance platform

The only drone integration tanks need are either small reconnaissance drones capable of automatically following the tank and feeding data to it without the crew needing to micro manage it or unmanned ground vehicles capable of a high degree of autonomy

[autumn sorrel]

Honestly, I want this

[spring briar]

Just leave the nerd out of the tank

[shrewd pecan]

That’s all that’s left after the marine corps got rid of their tanks though

[narrow rover]

https://x.com/Scoabbaocs/status/1979735581493231935?t=eGCIxjsTOYP-UegVbSJs7Q&s=19

カイン ☦️ (@Scoabbaocs)

大和

用務が終わり、戦艦「大和」に帰艦し舷側に付ける飛行科のゴムボート。極めて珍しい写真である。

X · Oct 19, 2025, 2:25 AM

Yamato

[peak mango]

Minimal onboard scouting / situational awareness, plus with sufficient networking, you can have a dedicated UGV with a deeper battery of loitering munitions or whatever being controlled by the 4th member.

[peak mango]

Mobile nerd who can also do 4th crew member tasks as needed.

[shrewd pecan]

you don't need the 4th crewmember

[peak mango]

Makes life a LOT easier during non combat time.

[shrewd pecan]

there's a solution to this which also makes drone integration far easier without needing the 4th member taking up space in the tank that can be going to other shit

[peak mango]

Sure tagalong maint section, assuming they don't get bogged because they're on wheels, or missing because they're not providing direct combat power..

[shrewd pecan]

the French threw the dudes out of the tank and put them into Scout cars

the investigation group is all trained tankers

they can both help sustain the tanks while serving as a scouting element organic to the tank platoon

[peak mango]

Great until the integrated wheeled cav is off doing recon missions or not keeping up with the tracks.

[shrewd pecan]

the French have never had issues with this

you also don't even need to do this with platforms like VBL

no reason you can't just smack a pair of AMPVs or BVS-10s into the formation instead

[peak mango]

Anyway, tanks are going to get more secondary systems that require management, either onboard or as accompanying UGVs. Having a dedicated secondary system operator who can fill in to other roles at a pinch makes sense. Also still reduces turret size since those will still be 2 crew with the autoload. I guess you can offload some of those UGV/Drone/Loiter/etc operator roles to accompanying vehicles, but why make the operator further away from the TC who's supposed to maintain the battle picture?

[shrewd pecan]

the 4th crewmember is eating up space in the hull that could go to fuel or ammo

that or reducing the overall size of the tank

to have a UAV accompanying the tank platoon you don't need a 4th crewmember since we're at the point where that can be automated enough to not require micromanaging

in terms of UGVs command and control for such systems can easily be offloaded to other vehicles

that or its in the same camp of being automated enough to not require micromanagement

in terms of sustainment in the field you don't need a 4th crewmember for that

you can easily just form a 2nd section in the platoon using the former loaders to go serve as a support element

[peak mango]

So what do you think about 2 seater 5th gen fighters and UCAV management?

[shrewd pecan]

that’s different

if you’ll actually need it who knows but like in tank you have 3-4 dudes

future tanks are gonna have extensive amounts of sensor fusion and automation to where reasonably the commander can deal with commanding the tank and relaying information fed by drones

[subtle prawn]

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

[peak mango]

'5 gen fighters will have extensive amounts of sensor fusion and automation where the pilot can deal with commanding the aircraft and managing UCAVs'.

[shrewd pecan]

it’s likely most fighters won’t need the 2nd dude

but for certain mission sets yeah a 2nd dude could be useful, we still use WSOs for a reason

[peak mango]

Maybe. US is going one way, CN is going the other way.

[shrewd pecan]

Past that modern UCAVs process a giant degree of autonomy

With platforms like F-35 you can easily manage them while still you know being a pilot

[peak mango]

Same argument holds with tanks, really. Drivers gotta maintain local awareness and drive. Gunner manages the main weapons system and secondaries. Drone op controls UGVs and onboard defenses. (And can fail over with the gunner if one side gets saturated or the other). TC maintains overal picture and backs up others as needed.

[shrewd pecan]

the drone operator seat that is going to sit empty 99% of the time

that you also fundamentally do not need

[peak mango]

Also don't fundamentally need a WSO either.

'AI can do all that stuff, why do we need a 2 seat growler anyway?'

[shrewd pecan]

The only two aircraft the USAF has rn with WSOs are select variants of the F-16 and the F-15E

In terms of the growler the WSO is expected to do a mission set you reasonably cannot do with only one dude

on the tank you’re throwing in a 4th seat and control panel for a capability that most of the time is going to go unused

[peak mango]

"It's just a maneuver training flight, WSO seat is going to be empty"

[shrewd pecan]

for the F-15EX yes unironically

since the single seater version was cancelled to save on development cost

[peak mango]

Mission set dependent.

[shrewd pecan]

In terms of the tank

you don’t need the 4th dude

UGVs doctrine wise are not gonna be placed into tank companies

they’re going into their own platoons under the new organization

by the time these units get them they’re gonna be highly advanced and capable of near full autonomy

It’s a 4th spot eating up space in the tank that can be used for better uses

In terms of personnel that’s a drone operator that could be better used in dedicated drone units

there is no point in eating up precious weight and space in a tank for something that is gonna be far better done by a dedicated platform that doesn’t need to engage in frontline combat

Even if you want something like that smacking the capability into future reconnaissance vehicles is gonna make far more sense considering they’re likely gonna have far more internal volume to work with than tanks do

[shrewd pecan]

Far more suitable platform for this type of capability

[peak mango]

It's a min max. Depends on the formation type (Heavy/Med/Light), degree of mobility required, degree of independence required, etc.

[peak mango]

Let's talk about this though - an ACT is a heavy formation. Troops are ~ company sized. Given that, with 1-2 tank platoons (4 tanks) each, the UGV (or RCV in that) isn't going to be operating on it's own, but support for the 2 tanks platoons. C&C will still be with the tanks, since that's also likewhere where the troop commander is riding in. So your tanks end up being mobile TOCs while on the move.

[peak mango]

More of a medium division concept.

[shrewd pecan]

Again

The 4th crewmember is space being eaten up in the tank

That does not need to be

And even if it’s in support of the tanks they aren’t gonna be directly controlled or commanded by them

[shrewd pecan]

The concept works for both a tracked or wheeled vehicle

A tank is bad platform for C&C since it lacks the internal space for the necessary equipment and the external space for the necessary sensor and communication masts

on top of this you’re now adding the additional expense in weight and costs to each tank that the 4th crewmember and his equipment require

I’m also gonna point out the fact a tank platoon is going to have 4 TCs

And if we get to the point where tank platoons directly have UGVs attached

Not only are these UGVs gonna be highly autonomous and require no micro managing

4 TCs are reasonably gonna be able to manage them

like if you’re at the point where you need the 4th dude for this why the fuck are you having tank platoons directly incharge of swarms of UGVs over putting this under its own dedicated unit structure

I’m also just gonna point out the sustainment issues a tank platoon would have if you’re making them manage and sustain a bunch of UGVs over a dedicated unit intended for this

[peak mango]

ugv platoon sustains the ugvs, c&c belongs to the combatants the ugv is support for.

[peak mango]

Heh.. tell that to the commanders who fight from the TC hatch.

[shrewd pecan]

if you're at the point where the platoon is managing multiple UAVs & UGVs this practice is gonna fall out of favor

[peak mango]

BCs and Troop/Company commanders's tracks basically become rolling mini-TOCs with the rest of S3 in some brads trying to update picture.

But yeah, maybe.

[shrewd pecan]

like

the Israelis are already integrating F-35 style see through the vehicle HMDs for Merkava

future tanks you're likely gonna be running HMDs that not only let you look through the tank but give you the full sensor fusion from your vehicle, neighboring vehicles and UAVs

[peak mango]

For sure. And there's going to be some automation. But when your track becomes a rolling command centre, the fourth guy is gonna be playing s3 NCO (or troop hq psg). The management tasks are just going to become more with more vehicles to command per track.

[shrewd pecan]

the tank isn't the rolling command center

it shouldn't be

like

[peak mango]

https://www.reddit.com/r/army/comments/1fnk94l/what_is_the_battalion_commanders_tank_crew/ example

[shrewd pecan]

they have a M113/AMPV at battalion level for a reason

[peak mango]

Where the rest of XO / S3 is desparately trying to catch up the battle picture.

[shrewd pecan]

so we need to

add a 4th seat to every tank

to fix a issue that can just be solved through greater data fusion or doctrine changes

like I'm gonna be honest here battalion commanders are likely gonna be increasingly grow relegated to their actual command vehicles

[peak mango]

gl with that.

[peak mango]

Each tank is gonna start being it's own platoon strength element with it's accompanying ugvs.

[shrewd pecan]

so what happens

[peak mango]

That's the way I read the tea leaves anyway. Ymmv.

[shrewd pecan]

when the UGVs breakdown

and now 4 dudes need to sustain 3-4 UGVs in the field

[peak mango]

ugv plt's prob. Admin and sustainment's their biz.

[shrewd pecan]

like

I'm gonna be honest here

I don't see the point in having tanks be directly responsible for UGVs

[peak mango]

unitary taccon.

[shrewd pecan]

you're making a frontline asset worse at its job

for a capability that would be better in the hands of other vehicles/forces

if you're needing to manage platoon sized elements of UGV a AMPV or Stryker is gonna have far more space for the needed equipment for doing that

the tank is a tank

its job should be to be a tank

[peak mango]

Tank is rolling command centre that just happens to have a gun and the best protection.

[shrewd pecan]

why do we need to put this capability on the tank

[peak mango]

At least in Mech.

[shrewd pecan]

when its gonna worse at it

than other platforms

and it makes the tank worse at its job

[peak mango]

Just how the US rolls lol.

[shrewd pecan]

its not

tanks have not at any point been in direct command of UAV/UGVs

current requirements for M1E3 want a three man tank as well

[peak mango]

Like I said, BC/CC(or troop commander) sits in a track when rolling heavy.

[shrewd pecan]

ok?

that does not justify shoving in a expensive drone control console into every tank

[peak mango]

Sure. Only 4 man concept is the KF51.

[shrewd pecan]

and the KF51 is the worse one out there

like

if you want a command vehicle better cheaper options exist

if you want a frontline asset capable of command and controlling UAVs whatever ends up replacing the CFV is likely gonna be the far better option since its gonna have the actual internal room to fit multiple control panels and their personnel

[peak mango]

Nowhere near finalized yet.

[shrewd pecan]

the prototype is set to be delivered next year

https://www.twz.com/land/m1e3-abrams-next-gen-tank-pre-prototype-to-be-delivered-by-end-of-year

[peak mango]

So .. Type 100. Still on the command vehicle concept with a smaller gun. 3 man crew though. Lots of command node stuff, all AR devices and whatnot.

[peak mango]

Rapid drivetrain prototype.

[shrewd pecan]

“We] gave them [PEO-GCS] a challenge, gave General Dynamics a challenge,” Miller continued. “I want a tank by the end of the year, and we need a platoon by the end of next year. We understand there’s a lot of process things that we, the government, impose. So things like critical design review, things like final design review, those are government processes.””

[peak mango]

No final weapon choice yet, no choice of autoloader yet. No choice of final crew size yet.

"“The reason we want to get the platoon out earlier is because we want the armor brigades to be able to tell us what works and what doesn’t,” he said. “And then, rather than wait three or four more years, do [sic] some feedback then, allow GD [General Dynamics] to make those changes, and then get the next iteration out the next year.”

“What we didn’t want to do is the first time that a tanker sees the new tank is [when] it’s done, you can’t change anything, and it’s six years from now,” he continued. We want to “get feedback for the seats. Get feedback for the gunnery. Get feedback for the autoloader.”"

Rapid proto, nothing finalized.

[shrewd pecan]

yeah I don't think the 4th crewmember is happening regardless

it introduces a bunch of draw backs design wise and past that like

I'm just remembering the Chieftains video regarding drones he did

I don't really see how one dude in a tank is going to be able to effectively manage entire strike packages of UCAVs or groups of UGVs needing to do multiple very different things

I don't really find it particularly realistic for a tank platoon to have to manage not only its assisting combat UGVs but its contingent of UCAVs for various missions alongside combat engineering UGVs and logistic UGVs

https://youtu.be/c3JFO2fRels

as I keep saying

dedicated platforms for drone command & control are gonna be able to do this mission set far better

all tanks should have to worry about is the tank commander time to time having to look down at his touch screen to go give a UGV or two a basic order that it can reliably go do by itself

[peak mango]

We're just gonna have to disagree there. Right now the battle is being fought from the TC seat, and I'm going to doubt that there's going to be a movement away from that.

[shrewd pecan]

the battalion commander

is not going to be the one managing drones

the tank platoon commander is not gonna be the one managing drones

the robotic platoon or company

is gonna be the one doing so

because they're the best suited to do so

yes I can see MBTs & future IFVs having limited ability to command & control small groups of drones

but like if you're at the point of tank platoons being mostly UGVs you might as well just go all the way

[peak mango]

UGV plt is maint and sustainment. Taccon will be the vehicle the UGVs are attached to. Imho. At least in any sort of group maneuvering.

Imho, anyway.

[shrewd pecan]

the drones don't require you to be right next to them to command & control them

[peak mango]

We'll see how it plays out.

[shrewd pecan]

the entire point of the future UGVs is that they're gonna be highly autonomous and require minimal human intervention past basic orders

[peak mango]

Of course not. But each track will have a sector it's primarily responsible for, and UGVs it it's sector will be controlled by it, not by a different plt.

[shrewd pecan]

the robotics platoon can attach its people to other platoons

[peak mango]

In something softer skinned? With less direct comms than being on the track 'net?

[shrewd pecan]

they don't need to be directly next to the tanks

to be in coordination of the tanks and to be commanding the accompanying UCAVs & UGVs

integration of these things are likely gonna lead to improved coordination between platoons and supporting elements

[peak mango]

Again, being on the same headset loop (and internal network) as the track in charge of the sector has an advantage.

[shrewd pecan]

future tanks realistically are gonna be able to see the exact same shit the robotics platoon is seeing

UGVs and UCAVs are gonna be able to feed data to both

[peak mango]

I think we have some doctrinal differences in the role of a tank. What you want is closer to a protected autoloading UGV with a 120+. What I see is a fast, mobile, protected rolling battle management center, that happens to also have a gun.

[shrewd pecan]

the last place I want my battle management center

is directly on the frontline

A tank is not a battle management center

It is a tank

[peak mango]

Directly? No. In close enough proximity to act a reserve force for the UGVs, have a good tactical picture even if supporting assets are attrited, and have direct control over the battlespace in question? Yes.

[shrewd pecan]

what’s the point in even having it be a tank then

[peak mango]

Every tank is battle management. Even if it's just for the crew onboard.

[shrewd pecan]

No it’s not

[shrewd pecan]

why are you having a tank do this

why aren't the tanks just UGVs at this point

you might as well just have a command IFV packing a few spike NLOS at that point

the job of the tank is to maneuver and engage the enemy with protection and firepower

[peak mango]

If the command IFV was as protected as and as mobile as a tank, it's just be a tank.

[shrewd pecan]

the job of the tank is not to sit in the backline and be a command post

[shrewd pecan]

if its sitting in the backline it doesn't need to be as protected as a tank

additionally no

[peak mango]

Midline. Tank is QB in the paradigm.

[shrewd pecan]

this is no longer a tank

you want a glorified command vehicle

[shrewd pecan]

like this is not the mission set of a tank

why would you even be trying to cram a tank into this mission set

if the entire point is a drone control platform that is a variant of a IFV is gonna be far better suited to this than a tank is

you have the internal volume for the necessary command & Control equipment alongside the necessary space for NLOS ATGMs or loitering munitions

[peak mango]

Take a look at what this Bn Cdr thinks about fighting a track. It's pretty typical. (From the thread I pointed at earlier https://www.reddit.com/r/army/comments/1fnk94l/comment/lokuqky/)

When I'm on the vehicle I'm still commanding the battalion. My expectation for my Gunner is that he is maneuvering the vehicle when I'm working the radios and the communication systems. Again, I have an entire battalion to focus on. ... Again, the best gunners I've seen will take advantage of the position an insert themselves have valuable points where they can make a difference.

Finally, I will tell you that if you're being considered for this position then you've done something right and you've impressed someone. A commander needs a solid gunner because at the end of the day he is still commanding the organization and must focus on the organization.

...

Only, with UGVs that experience is getting passed down to not just the BN and Troop lead tanks, but likely every tank pair leads a section of UGVs for command. That means more human brains doing brain things and talking things.

[shrewd pecan]

again

a tank is not suited for what you want it to do here

[peak mango]

Yet that's how mech fights IRL.

[shrewd pecan]

wy

Battalion Commander tanks are not managing shittons of UAVs and UGVs by itself

the example of a battalion commander in his tank is not a good example here

[peak mango]

No, they manage the battlefield AND likely the gunner/operators are managing their UAV/UGV sections.

[shrewd pecan]

why

are you cramming all of this

into one vehicle that does not have the space for

vs you know

for example a IFV

where you can fit not only the 3 person crew

alongside 3-4 dudes capable of operating drone command & control consoles

[peak mango]

Immediacy and protection. The armored thing with a gun is a good strongpoint with capacity for self defense measures. It's able to contribute to the battle if required. It likely has the most protection out there.

Like I said - we obviously have different doctrinal views of what's going to happen to the armoured force. Mine's from seeing they operate right now, and adding in UGVs into the present mix and thinking ahead.

[shrewd pecan]

like just for example this is the crew for the Lvkv 90 (the SPAA CV-90)

[shrewd pecan]

so how about

we have the 3-4 human tank platoons with 4 normal tanks each

and then the robotics company/platoon then attaches one of its drone control IFVs to said tank company or platoon

therefor the drone control vehicle can actually manage this horde of UGVs & UCAVs

while the tanks actually go and do their job supported by the robotics company

[peak mango]

Heh that's worse that knocking out the command tank, now you have a thin skinned ifv that's the obvious target to knock out the formation's fighting power.

[shrewd pecan]

ok instead you have a frontline combatant responsible for managing all of these UGVs that is gonna be the main target of the enemy that if it gets knocked out all of these UGVs are now commandless

vs a IFV that can go and hide in the rearline

is capable of defending itself if the enemy does show up

[peak mango]

Tank pairs and clean handoffs. Plus, the closer you are the less likely you're going to be denied comms to the ugvs.

[shrewd pecan]

you can have UCAVs acting as communications links

there's already solutions for this that don't involve tryna make every tank into something it isn't

like in Ukraine the average drone mission usually requires multiple drones acting in support roles as either defensive/offensive ECM, communication nodes just to support the drones going out to perform attack missions

UGVs you're gonna have to be directing not just the frontline UGVs but the supporting ones performing missions like combat engineering, logistics or specility roles like EW & communications noding

[peak mango]

Eh. Every tank is gonna change anyway. Gotta have your own short range ADA, gotta carry your own EW, even gotta have vast changes in how you manage the battle and all your extra assets. Having it all in one location lets you have unity of action.

[shrewd pecan]

:/ the US's current solution to drone threats is a mixture of upgrading trophy and a new version of CROWs capable of rapidly responding to drones detected by the APS

[peak mango]

I'm not saying the track in the rear isn't a useful bonus. Like I said, S3's back there trying to provide plans support.

[shrewd pecan]

short range AD is gonna amount to a M240 on a quick reaction CROWs

[peak mango]

And thinking about the next operational cycle, and all the fun things S3 does.

[shrewd pecan]

I'm gonna be honest here

battalion staff likely ain't at all gonna be micromanaging the drone teams

unless they directly have experience or training in it

like its inherently a bad idea to just be throwing the task on everyone as well considering drones require expertise and planning to effectively use

[shrewd pecan]

again go watch the chieftain video

its not at all gonna be economical to field and train 4 drone operators per tank platoon

its also not gonna be the best use of said expertise considering you aren't concentrating these people in the actual drone units that need them

[peak mango]

Heh... Tankery the job field is going to change a bit, to be more of a battle management role vs just the tank itself. It already is, but even more so. So the job progression is going to be - Driver. Learn to operate your own systems. Systems operator - learn to operate accompanying UGVs and UAS and other 'systems' attached. Gunner - NCO who directs tank operations against all threats. TC - Sr NCO+ overall in charge of tank and allied systems.

So in a tank plt, you'd have the LT in A, PSG in B, C and D are SSGs who support A/B and take over the section if one is incapacitated. In that pipeline, everyone gets a turn once they leave the driver position to learn the UGV management job.

This, btw .. is fairly similar to the present loader>driver>gunner>TC pipeline.

[shrewd pecan]

I don't inherently see how it is at all going to become a battle management role

tanks are a frontline assets

they're meant to fight

they do not need system or drone operators

that is not the job of a tank

again there is inherent design trade offs you have to make to integrate said things onto a tank

[peak mango]

Those things are happening anyway.

[shrewd pecan]

on top of that there is now doctrinal, training issues and sustainment issues you now introduce into tank units

[peak mango]

You have a certain view of a tank I can't seem to budge.

[shrewd pecan]

when my tank job is no longer to manuever and engage with the enemy

it is no longer a tank

[peak mango]

It is, using these standoff adjuncts as well as onboard systems. Prior 'tank tactics' knowledge still holds, only now if you send X units forward they can be uncrewed and you don't have to write letters.

[shrewd pecan]

you're no longer using the tank

as a frontline asset

there is no reason

for a tank

[peak mango]

As needed and required.

[shrewd pecan]

to be forced to be a midline-rearline asset

it should be manuevering and engaging with the UGVs

[peak mango]

Tank is QB. Sometimes you call a QB run play y'know?

[shrewd pecan]

not sitting 5-10 KMs behind them trying to manage a horde of them with one drone operator crammed into the hull

it is going to be far better

to have dedicated vehicles for this task

that can sit in the rearline and comfortably have 3-5 personnel in the back that can command-coordinate and control all of these drones

than to throw this on a frontline asset

[peak mango]

Anyway, we're at an impasse. We'll see which way which militaries go with.

[shrewd pecan]

you're sooner gonna throw the crew entirely out of the tank than you're going to make it a dedicated drone command vehicle

[peak mango]

I have a feeling that the US forces are going to end up closer to my point of view than not, though.

[shrewd pecan]

:/ there's more command vehicle concepts & crewed loitering munition carriers than there's tanks with a drone controller in the hull

[peak mango]

Gives everyone independence of action with expendable supporting assets.

[shrewd pecan]

:/ the type of UGVs capable of keeping pace with and supporting a tank likely aren't gonna be actually all that expendable

on top of that that assumes these systems get fielded in sufficient numbers to justify that anytime soon

[peak mango]

More expendable than one with some dudes in it that you have to write letters home for.

[peak mango]

Fair enough.

[shrewd pecan]

like

as I said earlier

[peak mango]

Back to history for a bit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Sitgreaves_Cox

[shrewd pecan]

by the time these get fielded

these are gonna be highly autonomous assets

the ones the tanks are actually gonna be working with

are gonna be the types that need minimal human intervention

[autumn sorrel]

Wait, that many?

[shrewd pecan]

yes

[peak mango]

I really doubt the degree of autonomy allowed. At least in the west.

[shrewd pecan]

we have munitions 10+ old munitions capable of self identifying russian & Chinese tanks/ifvs and destroying them

the army is not gonna field combat UGVs that lack the capability of operating by themselves for long periods of time

[runic ermine]

War of 1812 eh

[peak mango]

Who last updated the database to reflect anything other than ex sovpac stuff again?

[autumn sorrel]

I think the Commander can do both radar operator and fire controller, modern FCS and sensor are pretty easy to use.

[peak mango]

Yeah. It's actually a cautionary tale for middies and provisional officers on their first cruises.

[shrewd pecan]

[peak mango]

And, something about how seriously the US takes independence of action.

[shrewd pecan]

I forgot what the fire controller did but the radar operator 100% needs its own dedicated person

[peak mango]

'You're a 3rd lt, but YOU'RE THE CO'

[shrewd pecan]

in terms of LULis

that's sweden's domestic air defense datalink system

[autumn sorrel]

I know, I complained about workload but surely the Swede systems are way more advance than what I am familiar with.

[shrewd pecan]

in terms of air defense

you need a dedicated radar operator

[peak mango]

... defense establishments are super conservative by nature.

At least in peacetime.

[autumn sorrel]

Can they just, I don't know, off load it to Platoon command section? Having 1 operator like that in each vehicle seem excessive.

[shrewd pecan]

these vehicles have built in radars giang

[peak mango]

Pre networked radars.

[autumn sorrel]

I meant the LULis operator, I understand the need for dedicatd radar operator but LULis sound more like something for platoon or company commander to worry about.

[shrewd pecan]

its the datalink operator

[autumn sorrel]

Basically the IT guy

[shrewd pecan]

these vehicles were made back in the 90s

so reasonably you could likely automate it today

I mainly brought it up just to show what you could reasonably have onboard a IFV chassis

[autumn sorrel]

Only if you actually reasonable with the concept

[shrewd pecan]

like

if you want something for command and controlling drones on a larger scale

a IFV chassis or something like a stryker/boxer is just gonna be better for it

since you have that actual internal volume for smacking a bunch of control consoles and communications equipment in the vehicle

[autumn sorrel]

Yeah but in this modern age of military procurement, the simple solution of just modifying the already existed command vehicle won't sell. They going to put it in as a specialized version of some new multipurpose platform that going to be defund down the road and then we just going to stuck with ad-hoc field mod or unit own conversion model.

[shrewd pecan]

but it will

considering a bunch of nations are already starting to buy dedicated loitering munition carriers or new command vehicles

[autumn sorrel]

We will just have to see

Most of it is still unproven concept anyway.

[shrewd pecan]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_equipment_of_the_German_Army#Communications_equipment

[autumn sorrel]

The doctrine still in it infancy

[shrewd pecan]

just look at the Germans

their modernization is honestly just bonkers rn

everything from trains to buying both Piranha and boxer at the same time

[autumn sorrel]

Piranha?

Why that old platform?

I see, new command relay vehicle

[shrewd pecan]

its the newest version of it

in 6x6 and 8x8 version

[autumn sorrel]

Bruh, they literally going to order a bullet train just for med evac and field hospital

I mean, I guess seeing how horrible the medical side of the current conflict are, having something like that going to save a lot of lives

[peak mango]

radio guy.

[peak mango]

Yup.

[peak mango]

tactical box on wheels. I mean I'm a huge fan of M113 based UGVs because there's literally thousands of them sitting around, they're boxes on tracks...

[peak mango]

tracks are horribly static targets.

[peak mango]

Not sure if sufficient tbh.

[remote monolith]

https://fxtwitter.com/LandsknechtPike/status/1978796743870353886

Aristocratic Fury (@LandsknechtPike)

Look how many extras they used in the Czech movie Against All (1956) to film a massive charge of the Hussites at the Battle of Vítkov Hill in 1420.
︀︀
︀︀x.com/LandsknechtPike/status/1900920230278320255/video/1

**💬 32 🔁 325 ❤️ 3.4K 👁️ 301.3K **

▶ Play video

FxTwitter · Oct 16, 2025, 12:14 PM

old movies with hundreds to thousands of extras like these are just too fun man

[desert agate]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ut9rS2FoPQ

Not the first time PLAAF assets have acted in a dangerous and unprofessional manner around RAAF aircraft

How long until we see a repeat of the Hainan incident

How long until we see another tragic and pointless loss of life

[remote monolith]

https://fxtwitter.com/TimothyEveland/status/1973848322462134495

Medieval Diesel (@TimothyEveland)

16th-century wheellock pistol owned by Emperor Charles V.

**💬 5 🔁 37 ❤️ 394 👁️ 5.4K **

FxTwitter · Oct 2, 2025, 8:31 PM

Charles V was pretty interesting, he was the last man before Napoleon to came close to a universal European monarch, and he damned attempted it with all his might

Even though he failed badly, he left the Spanish Empire THE hegemon of Europe with France surrounded by his holdings, plus he strengthened the empire by expanding its American holdings (on top of a lot of blood, he presided over both Pizzaro and Cortez).

And despite that, as far as a monarch went, he was rather cosmopolitan and humble, speaking probably about half a dozen languages fluently and never really having a massive palace as his courts go wherever he's needed

His son unfortunately didn't inherit that and started the slow backslide of Spanish power, but still

On the other hand he was definitely a fanatical Catholic and very much hated Protestants, and a lot of his energy was spent trying and failing to stamp out Protestantism entirely

[autumn sorrel]

Honestly, I really like old historical movie like this. Sometime they got the armor wrong but most of the time it look so vibrant. I love a coloful medieval more than what it currently now.

[remote monolith]

oh yeah there's a certain sense of 'epicness' with vibrant colors, which I'm sure is one of the reasons why we have many colorful banners, heraldries and other devices irl anyway

aside from personal identifications its good for morale and cohesion

[autumn sorrel]

Yeah but medieval people really like colors, peasant and nobility alike.

[remote monolith]

people have always like bright, even garish, colors

Roman statues tend to be garish af

ancient Egyptians plastered their shit with a bunch of colors

[autumn sorrel]

Which remind me of the whole Cleopatra thing

[remote monolith]

you mean the she was black thing?

despite the fact that she's part of a colonizer upper class that imposed themselves upon a fairly cosmopolitan society comprising of multiple different ethnicities?

[autumn sorrel]

Yeah, we all know how she look like from her bust and while Roman might consider an enemy, they would still trustful about her appearance.

[remote monolith]

https://fxtwitter.com/MedievalScholar/status/1977818922515910904

The Medieval Scholar (@MedievalScholar)

A reconstruction from 1833 of the banners that were flown by the English and French at the Battle of Agincourt in 1415.

**💬 16 🔁 130 ❤️ 1.4K 👁️ 46.9K **

FxTwitter · Oct 13, 2025, 7:29 PM

it can't be understated how important banners are to premodern armies, especially royal standards

the banner of the monarch or general are rallying points pointing out the right way for vassal and other troops not part of the main host, and in turn just seeing it has actual psychological effects on morale, as seen in this passage

Suddenly the king cried to Snowmane and the horse sprang away. Behind him his banner blew in the wind, white horse upon a field of green, but he outpaced it. After him thundered the knights of his house, but he was ever before them. Éomer rode there, the white horsetail on his helm floating in his speed, and the front of the first éored roared like a breaker foaming to the shore, but Théoden could not be overtaken.

Fey he seemed, or the battle-fury of his fathers ran like new fire in his veins, and he was borne up on Snowmane like a god of old, even as Oromë the Great in the battle of the Valar when the world was young. His golden shield was uncovered, and lo! it shone like an image of the Sun, and the grass flamed into green about the white feet of his steed.

For morning came, morning and a wind from the sea; and the darkness was removed, and the hosts of Mordor wailed, and terror took them, and they fled, and died, and the hoofs of wrath rode over them. And then all the host of Rohan burst into song, and they sang as they slew, for the joy of battle was on them, and the sound of their singing that was fair and terrible came even to the City.

[timber linden]

I would be careful criticizing the PRC here, I have had the mods sicced upon me for that

[desert agate]

Discussions about the South China Sea and the tensions surrounding it have been proven to be on topic in this channel as mods have not taken action against it in the many years I've been an active member

[remote monolith]

this passage from the Strategikon of Maurice also showed the importance of banners

(18) If a standard should be captured by the enemy—may this never happen—without a good and manifest excuse, we order that those charged with guarding the banner be punished and reduced to the lowest rank in their unit or the schola in which they are registered. Ifit happens that any were wounded in the fighting, they shall be exempt from such punishment

Since we know that the enemy generally bases his estimates of the strength of an army on the number ofstandards, we think it necessary for each tagma to have two standards, both the same. One is the regular standard, in the name ofthe count or tribune ofeach tagma. The other is that ofthe hekatontarch, who is also called the ilarch. Both should be carried by the tagma and held in equal honor until the day of battle. On the day of battle only the one regular standard should be raised, for flying a large number of banners causes confusion and the men may not recognize their own. In this way it is possible for the army to appear strong by the number of standards, and
still on the day of battle have the regular one easily recognized. Tagmas which are gready reduced in strength should not be allowed to fly their standards in open batde, but should take their stand under another one, the reason being that because they are few in number they will not be able to protect their own, and having many banners
flying would cause confusion in the meros. As stated, however, arrange matters so that each bandon has no less than two hundred men and no more than four hundred.

[desert agate]

Just don't be a partisan political dickhead

[remote monolith]

When the lines are being formed, heralds should scout the area where the battle is expected, that is, the ground between our lines and the enemy. They should be on the lookout for ditches, swampy ground, or any traps which may have been laid. Ifany such are found, our lines should stay put, allow the enemy to advance past those spots, and then chaige over good groimd. Not only should the merarch’s own standard be different in appearance from the others under his command, so as to be eeisily recognized by all subordinate standard bearers, but when the army halts, it should be carried in some distinctive way, such as a steady holding high or low, inclined to the right or the left, or raising up the head ofthe banner, or holding it upright and waving it frequently. In this way, even in the confusion of battle, it will be easily recognized by the other standards. The standards of all the merarchs must not be carried in the same way, but each should be different, and it should be practiced during drill, so that all the men may become familiar with them. Not only does this help the various bandons under the merarch’s command to locate their own meros quickly, but it makes it easy for any stragglers, recognizing the standard ofthe meros to which they belong, also to find their own tagma.

[timber linden]

Guess I am special, hence the name

[remote monolith]

this one too from primary sources of the battle of Nicopolis

When the king heard that the Duke of Burgundy was forced to surrender, he took the rest of the people and defeated a body of twelve thousand foot soldiers that had been sent to oppose him. They were all trampled upon and destroyed, and in this engagement a shot killed the horse of my lord Lienhart Richartinger; and I, Hanns Schiltberger, his runner, when I saw this, rode up to him in the crowd and assisted him to mount my own horse, and I then mounted another which belonged to the Turks, and rode back to the other runners. And when all the Turkish footsoldiers were killed, the king advanced upon another corps which was of horse. When the Turkish king saw the king advance, he was about to fly, but the Duke of Iriseh, known as the despot, seeing this, went to the assistance of the Turkish king with fifteen thousand chosen men and many other bannerets, and the despot threw himself with his people on the king’s banner and overturned it; and when the king saw that his banner was overturned and that he could not remain, he took to flight.

[desert agate]

It is relatively simple to criticise and comment on various topics without being political

If you were warned for such behaviour then that is clearly a comment on your conduct more than your content

[remote monolith]

the way how banners are so important that just seeing it fell destroys the will to fight is ubiquituous everywhere

even outside Europe this is the case, including among the Arabs at the Battle of Mu'tah

Another account says that the Muslims received intelligence that a vast multitude of Arab and Non-Arab infields were assembled and encamped in the eastern quarter. The Muslims were three thousand strong, and at length met the army of Rum at a village called Ashraf, in the district of Bulka, and retired to Mutah, where the battle was fought

Shaykh Tusi has narrated from Zuhri that when Ja’far returned to Medina from Habasha, the Holy Prophet (S) sent him to the Battle of Mutah and appointed him, Zaid bin Haritha and Abdullah bin Rawaha in turn to bear the standard. At the beginning of the engagement Ja’far raised the banner, and mounted on a red horse, fought till he received many wounds, when he dismounted, hamstring his horse, and fought on foot till he was slain.

He was the first Muslim that hamstrung his horse. Abdullah, who next took the command, was likewise slain, but Khalid bin Walid, who succeeded him, after continuing the action a short time, fled and sent Abdur Rahman bin Samrah to inform the Prophet of what happened. The messenger found the Prophet in the Masjid, and he ordered Abdur Rahman to be silent, that he might himself announce what had occurred, which he did.

The people wept at the mournful relation, but he said to them, “Weep not, for my community is like a garden whose owner cultivates it well, builds houses in it, prunes its trees that they may be more fruitful year after year. Verily, when Isa shall descend among my community, He will find a multitude of apostles like His own.

Qutub Rawandi has narrated that when the Messenger of Allah (S) sent the army to Mutah, he appointed three chiefs saying that after each is killed the other should take the command. At that time, a Rabbi was present there. He said: “If this man is a prophet, all three will be martyred.” “Why?” asked the people.

He said: “Whenever a prophet of Bani Israel sent an army with similar instructions to a hundred persons, all of them were sure to be killed. It is narrated from Jabir that on the day the Battle of Mutah was fought, the Prophet went to the Masjid and announced to the people what was transpiring on the contested field. Among other particular statement, he said that Ja’far, having his right hand cut off, raised the banner in his left hand, which likewise losing, he sustained the standard by pressing it to his bosom with folded arms, till at length he fell a martyr.

Now the standard was bore by Khalid and after sometime he fled the battlefield and the Muslims also fled from the battlefield. On leaving the Masjid, he went to Ja’far’s house, whose little son, Abdullah bin Ja’far, he took upon his lap and stroked his head. The mother, Asma binte Umais, observed that the Prophet’s manner seemed to denote that the child was an orphan.

even the Chinese has one, as seen from this Tang era banners

bottom line, just felling a standard is no mean feat, much less taking it

but if you do it, then the enemy morale would shatter

oh right Japan too as you know, has the Ashigaru

[runic ermine]

I remember reading that God himself gave the French the Oriflamme

[brittle glacier]

What if we made a modern version of Hussite war wagons?

[runic ermine]

We call those tanks

[remote monolith]

Or trains

That works too

[remote monolith]

As it was said, yeah

[runic ermine]

I mean it makes sense

[brittle glacier]

Imagine this but self propelled and with MGs…

[runic ermine]

France is the eldest daughter of the church

[remote monolith]

Don't let Burgundians or Germans hear thay

[remote monolith]

Yeah that's just an APC

[brittle glacier]

Yeah, just need some ports for infantry rifles/GPMGs…

[desert agate]

I too hate NBC protection

I think my infantry should die in a nerve agent attack

If my troops get exposed to radiation they should just man up and get over it

Some spicy rock isn’t stopping my troops

[remote monolith]

I mean the Catholics don't have chemical weapons, I don't think HRE even possessed the ability to make one

[desert agate]

Protestants do though

[remote monolith]

Aside from that the War Wagons ultimately got crushed not too long after their introductions despite their great effects

The Gulyay-Gorod was probably a better take on the concept

[peak mango]

Well yeah. "They got throug to the most protected part of our forces"

[remote monolith]

Sometimes impetuous kings lead their own charge and got separated

This happened to Thorismund at Chalons

[peak mango]

Leads back to yesterday's conversation about commanders leading from the TC hatch...

[remote monolith]

Tbf, leading from the front wasn't necessarily a bad thing

Often monarchs lead by example

Being at the front is risky, but they can also reinvigorate the men and giving them courage

A leader staying at the back all the time could be seen as a coward

[peak mango]

Calculated risk.

Hopefully calculated, anyway.

[remote monolith]

Yeah, it's risky but can pay off big

Darius III was abandoned and betrayed because he was at the very back and ran when Alexander breached his line

So his people saw him as a coward abd a fool

On the other hand, being TOO brave leads to Nicopolis

Aka the idiots that were the Crusaders went so far forward they got cut off and forced to surrender

[junior trench]

https://tenor.com/view/bradley-ifv-second-to-none-1982-fmc-gif-8220568578906290379

[brittle glacier]

Recoiless rifles are a vibe.

[timber linden]

https://tenor.com/view/chernobyl-party-hard-dance-party-time-moves-gif-16792365

[runic ermine]

This is probably one of the most interesting presidential elections in American history
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1812_United_States_presidential_election

-First election to be held during war time
-First election to be held while a foreign power occupied American territory
-Guy running against Madison (DeWitt Clinton) was also a member of the Democratic-Republicans though he was endorsed by some Federalists
-Due to the fact that there was a war going on and that Madison was the one who declared war, Clinton was the anti war candidate. Clinton rallied against the war in the Northern States (because the war was most effecting them) while rallying for the war in the Southern and Western states with the ultimate goal of creating a coalition of anti war Democratic-Republicans and Federalists
-This was the closest presidential election in American history until the 2004 election

Also Michigan is greyed out because:

1. It wasn't a state yet, it was a territory
2. Even if it could vote, how are you gonna get the ballots from the people who are living under occupation?

The other territories that are greyed are: Missouri, Illinois, Indiana and Mississippi. The light grey territory near the bottom is just something that the US claimed which Spain controlled at the time

[narrow rover]

That's just an IFV

[shrewd pecan]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffel

Prime way to get grenades thrown or dropped into your passenger compartment tbh

[autumn sorrel]

Only if you can get close enough to throw grenade

[autumn sorrel]

Technically, drone wasn't one of the threat assesment back then

[shrewd pecan]

his idea was a modern vehicle

past that that doesn't prevent it from being thrown in from a building]

[autumn sorrel]

Ah, you mean the argument of firing port on modern vehicle

I am not against it in general but I am against people putting it on IFV

[shrewd pecan]

this is

a terrible idea for any modern vehicle

there is a reason why we don't make open top vehicles like this anymore

[autumn sorrel]

Fun fact, early BTR-152 and BTR-60 were open top. Then they realize how dumb it was so they got cover afterward, even if it just thin metal sheet

[autumn sorrel]

You saying that but you would be the first to jump in and make a gun truck

[subtle prawn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFP0k7K9v1s

[subtle prawn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1DZo--qYfI

[narrow rover]

SS Delphine

[brittle glacier]

African Ground vehicles have an aesthetic.

[runic ermine]

God bless Canada

[supple sandal]

Throw corpse and dung

[remote monolith]

nah that's more Mongol kind of thing

[remote monolith]

now corpse catapult though are, kinda common actually

[remote monolith]

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1obya3j/is_the_qing_dynastys_wikipedia_page_out_of_touch/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

TIL that the wiki page for the Qing is probably not even good for casual recap or brief summaries

same with the Assyrian one

now I wonder how many other pages about obscure topics have these issues

[brittle glacier]

Spot the historical inaccuracy.

[runic ermine]

Once again, this is why Wikipedia isnt a good source

[subtle prawn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qec_H2WbUA

[junior trench]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNCU4WndtYk

guy goes over how they'd do things like purposefully use smoke generating compounds

rather than flame generating ones

and the smoke compounds would include all kinds of nastiness

like arsenic

and caustic shit

[subtle prawn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5V18Tw_jAA

[junior trench]

also uh

In 1672, during his siege of the city of Groningen, Christoph Bernhard von Galen, the Bishop of Münster, employed several different explosive and incendiary devices, some of which had a fill that included belladonna, intended to produce toxic fumes. Just three years later, August 27, 1675, the French and the Holy Roman Empire concluded the Strasbourg Agreement, which included an article banning the use of "perfidious and odious" toxic devices.

[remote monolith]

Ah interesting

Although it did seem comparatively rare

As in there's really not that many instances of such items being used in conventional warfare often to be an impactful factor overall

O guess you can say these are equivalents of Greek Fires

Or napthas

They're very rare and only used sparingly, but made impressions when they do

[junior trench]

manuscripts specifically call out that you should add things like camphor and arsenic for the noxious fumes produced

notably

vaporized arsenic from a fire produces a blister agent/gas

and camphor's muscle spasm/relaxing/fuckery means inhaling the vapors can basically shut down your lungs

[remote monolith]

Even so, again it does seems to be a very rare thing that cannot be constantly used, as battles like Pavia or Breitenfeld doesn't attest their regular usage

[junior trench]

they're not field battle things

[remote monolith]

Like even Greek Fires were not constantly used against the Arabs

I remember only a few battles during the rule Mu'awiya when they're definitely attested to

De Administrado Imperio also said that according to Porphyrogennetos its a highly secret process that's difficult to achieve

[remote monolith]

Pavia was still a siege early on

It was only lifted because of Habsburg reinforcement

Still, the fact that there are manuals for these, contrasting the highly secretive arts for Greek Fire, does means they see some fairly common usage

[frozen kestrel]

I'm fucking around with WT's Tiger II(H) model so I can do a render and I need to ask a question.
Is the the little orange dot, relatively speaking, the point of rotation for elevation and shit when it come's to the Tiger II's gun? I wouldn't be having this problem, but Gaijin didn't model the Tiger II's gun cradle.

[narrow rover]

Early chemical weapons are fun

[brittle glacier]

“Hey doc what the hell is this?”
“Trench soap!”
“Trench soap?”
“Yes! Cleans trench of filthy English.”

[subtle prawn]

https://fxtwitter.com/OnDisasters/status/1980782686857027842

Air Safety #OTD by Francisco Cunha (@OnDisasters)

Shared by @MassiasThanos 🧵 Promotional material for the General Dynamics / Westinghouse proposal for the AIM-152 Advanced Air-To-Air Missile (AAAM)

**❤️ 2 👁️ 392 **

FxTwitter · Oct 21, 2025, 11:46 PM

[desert agate]

https://x.com/hush_kit/status/1980899625537269980?s=46

Hush-Kit Aviation News, History & Satire (@Hush_Kit)

82 years ago today Flt Lt Peter Isaacson flew a Lancaster under Sydney Harbour Bridge
https://t.co/uTuuBJtUoc

X · Oct 22, 2025, 7:30 AM

[peak mango]

Gotta love chlorine.

[narrow rover]

Nah not that recent

[peak mango]

Ah pre ww1. Yeah, random stuff, whee.

[narrow rover]

I mean early. Like throwing chalk at your enemy's faces early

[brittle glacier]

Oof

[subtle prawn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiOw2wNMKjA

[rapid junco]

Free French Submarine Surcouf undergoing a overhaul at Portsmouth Navy Yard on Seavey's Island in Kittery, Maine - 1941
LIFE Magazine Archives - Thomas Mcavoy photographer WWP-PD
Posted by World War Pictures at Facebook https://www.facebook.com/share/1BcBhWtiFG/

[rapid junco]

Last picture
The other submarine is HMS Parthian
Who happened to sunk the Vichy French submarine Soufree in that same year
Parthian was lost in 1943, probably due to a seamine

<@&472236072743600148>

[peak mango]

That's some big.... surface guns.

[brittle glacier]

France was eternally stuck in “last war” mode…

[rapid junco]

8 inch guns

[peak mango]

Twice as big as most other subs.

[brittle glacier]

Which is kinda sad…5” shoulda been standard…

[remote flame]

the Washington Naval Treaty didn't say anything about putting heavy cruiser guns on a submarine, but Surcouf is proof why nobody else tried it

[terse mesa]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ap8gLm--Uug

[brittle glacier]

She weren’t that bad…right?

[desert agate]

The French were hardly the only ones to put big guns on submarines

In fact they were the only ones to do it with any degree of success

The British actually put a 12in gun on a submarine

It was lost in a training exercise

The Germans also mounted a 6in gun on a submarine in WW1 but again to little success

[spring briar]

How is Surcouf proof of that

She worked fine as a treaty loophole and had a well defined role.

[spring briar]

Noone else did it bc France was willing to go for the loophole and it was later patched

[remote flame]

actually it was the London Naval Treaties that stopped any similar subs from being built, but nobody tried to make more after the treaties were annulled
as for her role, she sunk before she could prove if it was well-defined

[spring briar]

The war simply did not allow for her role

Her features were extensively tested in the interwar

And upgraded troughout

Her role was definitely well defined
It was just a bit niche and naive but thats fine bc she’s a political ship anyways

[subtle prawn]

The only thing I recall her doing off the top of my head was landing some guys to take a part of France near Newfoundland

[spring briar]

She flew the FFNL flag mostly

Doing fetch quests

Most of our Free French subs ended up doing supply and liberation missions

The Vichy subs did the fighting

[brittle glacier]

The Narwhal class Cruiser Subs in the US had two 6” guns.

[zealous vine]

Does anyone have data on the performance of the 155mm 3rd year

[brittle glacier]

Wer?

Like the Long Tom?

[zealous vine]

3rd year type

The Japanese doodad on the Mogami

[brittle glacier]

What kinda stats you looking for?(also that’s an atypical name for Japanese armaments)

[desert agate]

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_61-60_3ns.php

If it isn't on navweaps it's either buried in a Japanese archive or was burned before the surrender

[brittle glacier]

We got muzzle velocity…

[desert agate]

Otherwise some of the other members can help with immune zone calculations if that's what you need

Or just use FACEHARD and do it yourself lol

Rest in Peace Nathan Okun

Well, no, obviously not because I just provided considerably more information

[brittle glacier]

I misread your post. Oops.

Thought you said it wasn’t on there. Derp.

[desert agate]

I was perhaps unclear

But what I meant to say was just about all the accessible information on any particular naval gun can be found on navweaps, theres probably stuff that isn't on there but as far as having a single database of information online goes, you can't ask for much better

[zealous vine]

Pen

It does seem to have significantly more penetration compared to the 6"/47 according to the "US imperial formula" (which isn't all that accurate though), but I'm too dumb to comprehend how shock physics and shell composition come into play.

and when it comes to Japanese gunnery trials, more often than not data is scarce

[brittle glacier]

It’s thirteen calibers longer…

[zealous vine]

Barrel length ain't everythin

[brittle glacier]

Barrel length is a major factor in velocity.

It’s why the US went with a mid length 5” gun instead of sticking with the 28 caliber for AA use.

[zealous vine]

Shell design still comes into play

and propellant

[desert agate]

Japanese AP shells were notably shit

[zealous vine]

Exactly

[brittle glacier]

Yes. But a brick going mach Jesus is going to do a lot more damage than a 120mm APFSDS going at the speed of smell.

One of the biggest factors in armor penetration is velocity.

[desert agate]

Sure but Japanese AP caps often broke or simply failed to penetrate armour it theoretically should have

[zealous vine]

That's a bit exaggerated

[brittle glacier]

Yes projectile type is a factor, but you still need to go FAST.

[desert agate]

Nothing to do with the velocity it's just bad shell design

[brittle glacier]

I do not disagree.

[zealous vine]

If velocity is that good, the SH shells would like to have a say

[desert agate]

Generally the idea of having a higher velocity-lighter weight shell actually leads to worse performance for AP shells

The Germans loved their light weight high velocity shells in WW1 only to find themselves often worse off in raw capability compared to the British guns

The British later made the exact same mistake with the Nelson class, which had awful guns

[desert agate]

There's more to armour penetration than raw ballistics

Considerably more in fact

Again generally you want the heavier shells

There is a very good reason why during WW2, most navies with older warships tried to get better performance out of their guns by simply issuing heavier shells

[zealous vine]

So I'd like to ask

Was there any numerical estimation to the 15.5cm's pen, against whatever armor, RHA or some live armor.

[desert agate]

The Mogamis had pretty good guns, they fired a weighty shell (for a 6in gun) at a very high velocity, but the shells themselves were really bad

[brittle glacier]

You want bigger guns in general, more mass, more propellant more velocity, more space for all the goofy shit you want to cram into a shell.

[desert agate]

http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/index_nathan.php

[desert agate]

Well no because you don't really want to put 12in guns on a light cruiser

The bigger the guns, the bigger the ship you need to carry them

And as much as Jackie Fisher wished it were true, you cannot have an entire fleet of battleships, you actually need other ships to do other jobs

[brittle glacier]

Obviously there are limitations.

[zealous vine]

I need time holy

It's the equivalent of Jaba answering

[desert agate]

I am no Jaba

But I can point you in the right direction

I can't even get it to run so have fun

[zealous vine]

Omg it's that power hungry

Well it is a pen sim afterall

[desert agate]

No Windows 11 just doesn't seem to like it

I don't really have time to try and figure it out unfortunately

[zealous vine]

There doesn't seem to be any vids of it

[spring briar]

You can call on me any time

Mogami’s 6.1” type 91 projectile lacks an AP cap entirely
Instead it has a flat surface with a conical cap head on top of it.
(Shell on the right of this image)

Because it lacks an AP cap, it will always shatter against facehardened armor (because the hardened steel shell body will just contact the armor face without slowing down at all, which puts enough stress on it to shatter the shell)

Against Homogeneous armor however, which is much softer than facehardened armor, the shell body won’t shatter and here the velocity and mass of the shell will carry it trough

That’s why the Mogami’s gun seems to have such high pen

[desert agate]

Trying to find homogeneous armour in 1940

[spring briar]

Hm?

[desert agate]

oh wait my bad

I'm confused please ignore me

[spring briar]

Fun that you mention how good the SHS is
If you noticed the two shells with the highest pen at all angles are the 16”/50 Mk.8 SHS and the 380mm Opf Mle.1943, which is NOT a super heavy shell
Rather it is an upgraded version of the French 380mm OPf(K) RC Mle.1936 projectile
What changed exactly? - they kept the external shape of the projectile the same (super aerodynamic shape with the highest ballistic coefficient of any shell) but they improved the internal construction by utilising an American style thick AP cap, a slightly blunter nose under the cap to survive oblique impacts and most importantly, it used the american style sheath hardening method of heat treatment to make the steel much tougher.
The mass of the shell however did not change at all compared to the older version!

[floral mica]

what is chat about

[spring briar]

It has everything to do with construction and velocity in penetration of facehardened (class A) armor

Extra mass only really becomes important in super thick facehardened armors where the softer back layer is very thick or in thick homogeneous armor

[zealous vine]

Omg tysm 😭

On another note, I shoulda just looked back at this channel's history

I'm sure you've already explored that but I've forgotten what resources I have

[desert agate]

This channel kind of died because the regulars ran out of things to talk about

All the lolcows left...

[spring briar]

Still here

[zealous vine]

I guess it's a given for a historical channel

Man the naval genre is a desert

[floral mica]

navy is cool

[zealous vine]

Of all the autisms I could've been endowed with..

[floral mica]

big fat guns

[desert agate]

Only so many times I can talk about how the Collosus/Majestic class were the best carriers of the war unfortunately

[runic ermine]

There is a smuggling game coming out next year

[brittle glacier]

Here’s a question: How do you think a delayed impact fused Mk. 80 series bomb(let’s say a Mk. 86) would work against a battleship?

[desert agate]

This is actually peak carrier performance

[zealous vine]

You can prolly infer from Tirpitz' Tallboy incident

[desert agate]

It would probably sink if you dropped enough of them but really not the best weapon for the job

[zealous vine]

I was gonna ask about the closed design, but I ran back and found Jaba already explaining it

[desert agate]

Collosus class didn't have closed hangars

[maiden citrus]

you're not a lolcow don't worry

[spring briar]

[brittle glacier]

The Tallboy is like, six Mk. 84s(I got my numbers mixed up again)

[zealous vine]

Oh

I misjudged the size

[brittle glacier]

I mean it’s a 2,000 pound bomb…

[zealous vine]

Depends on where it lands

[brittle glacier]

Compare the effect to an AP bomb from the era…

[desert agate]

General Purpose Bombs aren't really known for their extreme armour penetration

You're going to struggle to put any GP bomb through the deck of a treaty onwards battleship

[brittle glacier]

Aye. Fair.

[zealous vine]

ahem-,, Littorio,,,

[desert agate]

I'm not sure I trust the claims that a mark 84 can go through 15in of steel
i'd also wager that steel isn't proper armour plate

[brittle glacier]

So you’d want something closer to a BLU-109…

(2,000lbs bunker buster)

[desert agate]

No that would be more likely to just go straight through the whole ship and explode rather pointlessly underneath

Unless you had some sort of dedicated anti battleship fuse that would probably work

[zealous vine]

If the buster did hit the main turrets though..

[desert agate]

Anything is possible with PAVEWAY

[brittle glacier]

Yes

This is true.

[desert agate]

Scrapped in 1948 what about her?

[brittle glacier]

Not sure I wanna use LGBs in this project yet though.

[zealous vine]

Deck

[desert agate]

6in deck

pretty respectable for the period

[spring briar]

That was an AP bomb

Not a GP

[desert agate]

Again not really sure what your point is considering that Roma was sunk by a dedicated anti ship bomb

[brittle glacier]

The first ship sunk by guided munitions if my memory servers correctly…

[desert agate]

It does not

[zealous vine]

My bad

My memory was of a comparison to other BBs

[spring briar]

Strasbourg got bombed by multiple GP bombs
None penetrated any vitals

Superstructure and weather deck looked awful ofc

[desert agate]

Actually it does serve correctly my bad, Savannah was hit 3 days after Roma

And also wasn't sunk

[spring briar]

That bomb went in and out and then exploded somewhere under water

[brittle glacier]

Had me worried there!

[spring briar]

Straight pass through

[brittle glacier]

Holy shit! They made a guided Tallboy!!! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASM-A-1_Tarzon

[spring briar]

Ah nvm it exploded under the mag deck

[desert agate]

Imagine being the poor North Korean to get hit by one of these

Overkill is truly never enough

[brittle glacier]

The designation ASM makes me think…did the “S” stand for “Ship” or “Surface”?

[desert agate]

It wouldn't be the modern use of the acronym ASM because it isnt a missile

[brittle glacier]

“M” might mean Munition?

[desert agate]

Apparently according to the USAAF it was a missile though

So I guess it means something

In 1948, the Tarzon was redesignated as ASM-A-1 guided missile, and the test models became the YASM-A-1.

[brittle glacier]

The fuck?! LOL.

[spring briar]

Similarly the F-22 in testing was called the YF-22

It’s a thing the US does

To denote prototypes

[desert agate]

No I'm talking about the ASM part

Americans have rather loose relationships with designations in any case

[brittle glacier]

Seems to have had fusing issues though…only 6 of 28 destroyed their targets…which given the size means it probably didn’t go off…

[desert agate]

The F-117 being a bomber

The F-100 being an ejection seat test bed

[brittle glacier]

It was because it flew light a fighter and fighter pilots weren’t gonna be happy flying a “B” designated aircraft.

[brittle glacier]

Wait really?

[desert agate]

The F-104 being a funeral provider

[brittle glacier]

lol

[desert agate]

It was a bad gun platform, it was unreliable, it was expensive
About all it was good for was waiting until the engine inevitably died mid flight so the pilot could bail out

Thank you Martin Baker

[brittle glacier]

Radar guided half-ton glide bomb in ‘45…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASM-N-2_Bat

[desert agate]

It wasn't even good at CAS it was basically just thrown at Vietnam to get some hours on the airframes for an excuse to retire them

[brittle glacier]

lol

“Glide Torpedo”!!! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GT-1_(missile)

https://tenor.com/view/laugh-out-loud-laugh-ridiculous-hilarious-lolz-gif-17376550074772904877

[spring briar]

Look up BHT-38

[brittle glacier]

Such a light munitions for how much a glide bomb would cost back then…

[spring briar]

It’s pre war

There were upgrades lined up for it

[brittle glacier]

So I’m learning, from what I’ve been able to find, that we stopped using guided munitions sometime around Korea, and that kinda makes me sad…

[desert agate]

Uhm

No?

It's just that the technology didn't really exist for a guided air to surface missile missile in 1950 that wouldn't result in your carrying plane being shot down

For all its faults the AGM-12 came about 6 years after Korea ended

[brittle glacier]

Oh. I was looking at a list of guided bombs. Derp.

[desert agate]

I think we should send more AGM-12s against the Tanh Hoa Bridge that will work

Send in another squadron this time we'll get it

[spring briar]

Mig valley moment

[desert agate]

If we keep firing them at Egyptian tanks they'll hit eventually

[brittle glacier]

“Short range command guided missile”🤢

[desert agate]

1 million AGM-12s

Maybe 1 will hit that T-55

[brittle glacier]

Those poor F-105s…

[desert agate]

The Israelis mostly flew them on A-4s

And since they have by far the most combat experience with them

Well combat experience as far as hitting the Sinai next to an enemy tank is concerned

[brittle glacier]

Was referring to the bridge thing.

At least they could slap a nuke in it…

Which, it was the Cold War, that was inevitable.

[brittle glacier]

Also: Is it just me or are Skyhawks fucking sexy?

[spring briar]

They cute yea

[desert agate]

They look their best in RAN colours of course

No bias at all

[brittle glacier]

You misspelled USMC sir.

[desert agate]

Very funny how American Skyhawk pilots simply refused to land on the Australian carrier during interoperability exercises

[brittle glacier]

Wait, really?

[desert agate]

Yes

They considered her too small to safely land on

Must have been news to the FAA pilots who landed on her all the time

[brittle glacier]

lol

Wait. Is that an old straight deck?

[desert agate]

The FAA pilots landing on Essex class boats meanwhile found the amount of space on those ships decks to be complete luxury

[desert agate]

No

[brittle glacier]

Didn’t we refit all our old carriers to have the diagonal/offset(whatever you call it) flight deck?

[desert agate]

Melbourne was the third aircraft carrier in the world to commission with an angled flight deck, steam catapults and a mirror landing system

[brittle glacier]

Okay. Just the picture was throwing me off I guess.

[brittle glacier]

Common Hornet W

[desert agate]

It isn't a particularly extreme angled deck

But on such a small hull there's not much you can do in that regard

<@&472236072743600148>

Thank you

I will again make the argument that the Majestic/Collosus class was the best carrier design of the war

Melbourne is an interesting ship with quite the story, and although she saw the end of RAN fixed wing aviation, the legacy of Australian naval aviation somewhat strangely lives on in the PLAN

So if you need someone to blame for the PLANs carrier fleet, just look at Bob Hawke

Or Margaret Thatcher indirectly

[brittle glacier]

What class was it that the Brit’s had that were classified as “armored”? Weren’t the Japanese surprised when their bombs started bouncing off Victorious’s deck?

Illustrious Class, yes?

[desert agate]

Illustrious and Implacable classes

[brittle glacier]

Ah

[desert agate]

They were not very good carriers

Nor were Japanese bombs bouncing off their decks

It was kamikaze strikes that proved rather ineffective against the British Pacific Fleets carriers, but the ships were very vulnerable to normal AP bomb hits

[brittle glacier]

Ah

[desert agate]

The reason VIctorious was the only member of the class to be refit with an angled deck was because the others had all taken irrepearable wartime damage that had stressed various beams and frames

[brittle glacier]

Oof

[desert agate]

That refit was insanely expensive and in the end completely pointless anyway because even after the refit her hangar was still too short for most fast jets

[brittle glacier]

Ooooof

Poor Robin

[desert agate]

I used to be quite the armoured carrier defender and I still think they had their advantages but simply not enough to outweigh the disadvantages

I think there are hints as to how good the British could have been in the light fleet carriers, because the moment they did away with the armoured decks they ended up with some of the most efficient and capable designs for their tonnage

[brittle glacier]

You don’t need jets! Just pack Skyraiders!

Or wait…Wyverns.

[desert agate]

Actually even more indirectly Leopoldo Galtieri

Leopoldo Galtieri is responsible for the Chinese carrier fleet

And I am not joking or exaggerating in the slightest

[brittle glacier]

I know what I must do, Fetch me my Time Machine.

https://tenor.com/view/terminator-sunglasses-shades-t800-arnold-schwarzenegger-gif-27448475

[desert agate]

I don't think a time machine would have stopped the Falklands war

[brittle glacier]

I don’t care about the falklands! We must stop the CCP from advancing as a military!

https://tenor.com/view/arnold-arnold-schwarzenegger-gif-16162828662034996968

[desert agate]

The RAN was planning to buy HMS Invincible to replace HMAS Melbourne, and literally weeks before Invincible was set to sail for Sydney, Argentina attacked the Falklands

Britain therefore decided they would quite like to keep Invincible and Melbourne was to be scrapped without replacement

She was sold to a Chinese scrapyard where she was completely stripped

Her flight deck was being used for pilot carrier training as late as 2010, after being removed and put onto a land base

[brittle glacier]

That’s some bullshit.

[brittle glacier]

Feel free to read this with the most redneck accent imaginable.

[desert agate]

I will not

[brittle glacier]

🙁

[peak mango]

5.7 lol

[peak mango]

Isn't that exactly how quicksink works? Keelbreaking?

[brittle glacier]

Quicksink guides a standard Mark 80 series JDAM to under the keel of the ship before detonating, it is not a direct impact weapon.

[peak mango]

Yes, exploding underneath the ship.

[brittle glacier]

Whereas using a BLU-109 MIIIIGHT not detonated close enough to the keel to do it…depends on the fuse length. Water has a lot more give than rock so it could go farther before detonating.

[peak mango]

Fancy void sensing fuses can be programmed for it I'm sure.

I mean it's kinda a waste of the crazy peen bomb, but...

[peak mango]

I'm partial to the Blue Angels livery, personally.

[brittle glacier]

How many GPU 5s could you realistically mount on an aircraft?

[peak mango]

Huh?

[brittle glacier]

The GPU-5/A is a 30mm four barreled Gatling cannon Gunpod…my question is, how many could you mount on an aircraft?

*And still have it fly of course

[peak mango]

Looks to be about 866kg loaded. So 2klb bomb hardpoints.

[brittle glacier]

They tried to replace the A-10 with an F-16 mounting them, but recoil made it way too inaccurate.

[peak mango]

Looks like the F15EX has 4x wing points of that size. Maybe a centerline one too.

[brittle glacier]

Damn, that’s a lot of hate.

[peak mango]

I think I'd rather have 28 SDBs

[brittle glacier]

WAITER!!! More laser guided Zunis please!

[peak mango]

Or yeah, the droneswatter

[brittle glacier]

Or abuse the B-1B’s new LAM pylons…

[brittle glacier]

Why would I waste 5” rockets on a drone? The fuel trucks are RIGHT THERE…

[brittle glacier]

Or slap all of the APKWS Hydras on it and go.

[peak mango]

That's basically that picture. Plus 4 amraam/sidewinder

[brittle glacier]

You can fit way more on there in LAU-3 pods!(I think they have dual mount pylons for them)

[narrow rover]

One hell of a take if I've ever seen one

And no one mentions Clarance Gauss

Sad Gauss noises

[brittle glacier]

What’s the general story of rocket artillery in naval combat? Was it only ever really used for shoes bombardments orrr…?

[narrow rover]

There was this one idea called the "dynamite gun" but it was a nightmare to aim

Soviet river gunboats often had rocket launchers

I don't think they were ever used for ship to ship combat before guided weapons. Way too hard to aim

[brittle glacier]

I’m imagining a PT boat that has a bunch of Tiny Tims on rails, run up and fire em at point blank.

Sooo…this is a thing…

Three guesses as to what this apparently is…

[subtle prawn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VewRPZ0-RFs

[spiral cedar]

@zealous vine Check my reply here; the JP 155mm guns have the best homogeneous armor pen of the ~6" category (due to their high muzzle energy), but totally flub against facehardened armor because (like other Japanese Type 91 AP shells below battleship caliber) they lack a true AP cap, only a sub-caliber "cap head" that isn't large enough to keep the shell body intact even if it punches a hole through the hard face

You can see the muzzle energy comparison here; at 35.0 mega-slug•ft²/s² they're leaving the barrel with more muzzle energy than anything of the 6" category besides the Soviet 152mm/57

So it's not that surprising that they have great homogeneous armor penetration capability

Rather, the surprising part is their terrible facehardened armor performance (breaking up upon impact always, even if they make a hole) due to the shell construction reasons outlined above

This would have been fine against most prewar US cruisers, since they only started using facehardened armor with the Wichita class (for CAs) and the Brooklyn class (for CLs)

But once you hit the facehardened armor cruisers (who also use Class A, aka facehardened, barbettes and turrets), the Japanese cruiser AP really struggles

[spring briar]

[spiral cedar]

Here's an email I received from the late Nathan Okun about the topic

The only correction I have to make is that Wichita herself used both the standard-weight 260lb AP and had facehardened armor, but it's the lone exception to his rule

[spring briar]

Damn
2021

Good old times

[spiral cedar]

🧓

[spiral cedar]

Not beating the allegations

[subtle prawn]

Haven't seen you in a while jaba

[brittle glacier]

DID SOMEONE MENTION A LOSER?!

[cyan oriole]

rocket artillery was for shore bombardment and as an ineffective AA armament

and in the end, why fire rockets off of surface craft when you could fire them off of aircraft

which are faster, more reliable, and more likely to get into position

username checks out

@spiral cedar oh btw did you see this? seems interesting

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B8bCDRcq9BVeUmp3LVFoU2V4UjQ?resourcekey=0-fL73IyEEI-8hb2g-7EPh8A

[brittle glacier]

Barb

[cyan oriole]

https://tenor.com/view/clash-royale-chevaucheur-hog-rider-question-mark-thinking-gif-17679823

[brittle glacier]

Five Inch rockets did such good work off of sub we now have multiple entire types of subs dedicated to it...

[frozen kestrel]

dude, i thought this was a fucked up live action model of those Imperial LAAT things

then again, i'm running on three hours of sleep, a microwave chicken sandwich, and spite for Charles Darwin himself, so... yeah...

[zealous vine]

I've only heard of Wichita's design now

oh wow

[narrow burrow]

Remember when I was freaking out about it

[desert agate]

That has a specially designed fuse for the role
A standard bunker buster would more likely harmlessly explode well below the ship

[runic ermine]

Of course you're in the TFR server

[runic ermine]

Yes

[narrow burrow]

Im not anymore im happy

[runic ermine]

That's nice

[narrow burrow]

But a wee bit of paint chip off

Its fucking old

[brittle glacier]

A German attempt to mount a 14" gun on wings.

[frozen kestrel]

A fucking WHAT on wings?

[brittle glacier]

You heard me.

[autumn sorrel]

Not a 14inch gun, just a recoiless rifle

[brittle glacier]

That’s still a lot of gun.

[narrow rover]

Thanks to this blasted thing every time a plane goes into a dive in a movie the siren is blasted in the background

Joseph Stalin

[autumn sorrel]

Park Chung Hee

[subtle prawn]

Chun Doo-hwan

[desert agate]

John Kerr

[autumn sorrel]

James Stewart

[remote monolith]

Romulus Augustulus