Deleted User 298457
Deleted User 298457
I'm thinking future looking. As drones get better and more powerful you'd be a mug to send in humans.
Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar
- Thread starter areksnumbr1sxylady
- Start date
- Status
When Musk has completed his drone/android venture it may well be these fighting future wars, but the powers that be may well decide that human cannon fodder is indeed cheaper.
I don't think you've expressed yourself very well but I think I understand what you're getting at. You're talking about a situation where remote weapons can strike anywhere from anywhere? I don't think such a future exists, because defences also improve. There will always be fighting over control of territory. As for the role of humans in warfare. For drones, well, drones need people guiding them and people on the ground will always have an advantage over them because they don't need to loop everything back and forward; but fully autonomous weapons will come eventually. I don't know to what extent they will complement or replace soldiers, but I suspect there will always be a role for a guy with a gun.
Scary but possibly very true. I suppose with respect to the current conflict, its actually being borne out.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 3,834
They don't have to be that powerful. Cheap drones carrying a grenade would be sufficient for house clearance, tunnel clearance etc.
Remotely operated drones also offer plausible deniability in proxy wars.
The main stopping point is the moral one- and that's really just rules of engagement/ targeting.
It's not great news for anyone, for reasons we can all guess at.
Every army is only as good as it's supplies. Ukrain are doing brilliantly, they get the arms from the West, just like all our allies so this is no different.
Russia is supposed to be this great superpower who can run though Ukrain like a dose of the clap but in reality they are a poory run army with failing and badly maintained equipment and poor 17 year old conscrits sent to die in their thousands
The Wests weapons should not have made a difference here, the USA would have had air superiority from day one, something the Russians still don't have.
The weapons being delivered into Ukrain is also a huge failure of Russia for not being able to stop it.
Again any competent army with air superiority would have all areas covered to stop the re supply.
The truth here is that Russia got complaceent in their own hype, greed and corruption diverted military funding into the generals, FSB etc bank accounts and the equipment was left without spares to keep them moving.
The super power status is their nuclear threat, it's all that is stopping Nato from wiping them out, a sustained attack on the Russian forces in Ukrain from Nato wouldn't be so incompetent.
There is also the true reason that Nato countries are being so generous with their equipment donations, every bullet and NLAW fired at a Russian tank is one NATO doesn't have to fire. The truth is these weapons were built with Russia in mind so they are going where they were intended.
They have always been a threat, the West have always known Putin ia a hawk waiting for his moment.
What's the point of fighting on a battle field if you can all be remotely picked off from an office block in central London?
Whats the point in having humans anywhere near the battlefield when AI vehicles in the air, on the ground and on the sea can just do it
I have no doubt if Nato get involved with boots on the ground then Putin would have no choice but to use tactical nukes.
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 2,467
- Location
- Macclesfield
I don't believe the Russian soldiers want to be there, their heart is simply not in it - they have no fighting spirit. It would be totally different if the West had invaded Russia and would then be much harder opponents. Putin is treating his army like droids and they are not inspired, they will run away at first opportunity and who can blame them?
TBH has this war made tanks obsolete? They are not the safe hugely armoured power houses anymore, they are deathtraps. These Javelins and NLAWS make them a very dangerous place to be, getting blown to smithereens from 2 miles away by a guy hiding behind a tree.
fek that, if anyone here thinks about joining the army make sure its not as a tank crew.
Hopefully one of them is the butcher of Aleppo.
In other news that totally isn't suspicious at all... the special conflagration operation continues.
https://m.glavnoe.ua/amp/n357084905-v-barvihe-gorit-dom-gubernatora-moskovskoj-oblasti
Deleted User 298457
Deleted User 298457
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
This is his plan for anyone that trolls him on twitter. "Tell me to stick my submarine where it hurts will ya... try this drone on for size pedo guy!"
If said AI equipped combat vehicles were all linked via a network of satellites for instant transmission of data (a network in the sky) , with built in logic and autonomous capability on the battlefield. Great idea. People can then bet on the outcome.
Tanks are not obsolete - the problem is poor utilisation of them and poor understanding/appreciation of what drones can bring to the battlefield and lack of preparedness to counter them.
Russia is often still using unsupported armour charges with their basic infantry bringing up the rear - one reason their soldier losses are so high as when an armoured vehicle goes boom good and proper it is often taking most of the crew and any passengers in the case of IFVs/carriers with it.
EDIT: Doesn't help either a lot of Russian tanks appear to be of sub-standard build quality and/or missing equipment.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,683
Tanks in Ukraine are just like Battleships in WW2, not totally useless but not the former powerful machines they once were
I wonder when Russia will start the concentration camps
Last edited:
Tanks haven't been made obsolete when used appropriately. Russia's extremely heavy loss of tanks is in large part due to using tanks incorrectly. Bad maintainence, bad training, bad logistics and bad application of tanks. Terribly bad in some cases. Sending tanks in alone was well known as being a bad thing to do almost as soon as tanks existed back in WW1, but Russia has been doing that now. Which is nuts unless you know your enemies never have any weapon more powerful than a rifle. I don't understand how any military could screw up using tanks so badly. I know better and I'm just a civilian with a slight interest in history.
Tanks have been a dangerous place to be at least as far back as WW2. Anti-tank weapons were much worse then than now, but so were tanks. WW2 planes and guns could destroy WW2 tanks. From 2 miles away in the case of some anti-tank guns. The most famous being the German PAK 43. That had a maximum range of ~15Km, although much less if you wanted a good chance of hitting the tank. But 2 miles away, sure. Maybe not with the first shot, but shells are much cheaper than modern missiles so if you had adequate logistics you could just fire half a dozen times.
The reason why tanks aren't obsolete is that they do something useful in war and there isn't anything else that does it as well. Their vulnerabilities don't negate the fact that there isn't a replacement for them, so the emphasis (except in Russia, apparently), is on mitigating the vulnerabilities of tanks rather than on replacing tanks.
There's a more detailed video here, if you want more detail from someone with far more knowledge than me:
Indeed , active protection systems are making tanks far more survivable, you only have to look to Israel and thier merkavas armed with trophy systems to show the tank and heavy armour in general are far from dead.
- Status