• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Future Armour

They are ‘A’ tool, not ‘THE’ tool. They have zero ability to stop an armored first rolling them, that is supported with artillery.
Progress.

You now allow that they are a tool...

;)
 
What does it offer that the drone itself doesn't offer?
I don't like Elon's various offerings. I do not mind a ground-based vehicle. Primarily because it can carry stuff and sit still and hide. I'm still not a fan of uncrewed vehicles. People add a dimension, if nothing else than to string out the cam netting and fix the little glitches that inevitably happen to equipment that is ridden hard or when the data link goes down. We're a few years away from Terminator-level power packs and AI.

🍻
 
I don't like Elon's various offerings. I do not mind a ground-based vehicle. Primarily because it can carry stuff and sit still and hide. I'm still not a fan of uncrewed vehicles. People add a dimension, if nothing else than to string out the cam netting and fix the little glitches that inevitably happen to equipment that is ridden hard or when the data link goes down. We're a few years away from Terminator-level power packs and AI.

🍻

I am asking why use a ground vehicle at all. Why not just sit back at a safe distance and send lots of drones?
 
I am asking why use a ground vehicle at all. Why not just sit back at a safe distance and send lots of drones?
Drones do not hold ground. Ever. Ground matters. Not just tactically, but strategically. See Ukraine as an example.

I like drones. I particulalry like cheap OWUAVs. We should have lots - and our own factories to build them. It seems like it should be a no-brainers to create industries to do that. It's well within our level of expertise and manufacturing scale.

I'd give up a brigade's worth of PYs and an equivalent number (or more) of above brigade HQ folks to fund an armament industry.

🍻
 
Drones do not hold ground. Ever. Ground matters. Not just tactically, but strategically. See Ukraine as an example.

I like drones. I particulalry like cheap OWUAVs. We should have lots - and our own factories to build them. It seems like it should be a no-brainers to create industries to do that. It's well within our level of expertise and manufacturing scale.

I'd give up a brigade's worth of PYs and an equivalent number (or more) of above brigade HQ folks to fund an armament industry.

🍻

Why is it important to hold ground?

I would suggest that it is important to hold ground because we are terrestrial creatures. We live on the ground. We move on the ground. We feed from the ground. We need our ground. Without our ground we cease to exist.

Equally though, if we die while attempting to hold ground, we cease to exist.

If we are reduced to tooth and claw and sharp pointy sticks then the odds do not favour our continued existence.

Far better to kill the other before they can close and destroy. And that means chucking things at them. In mass quantities and at the longest range possible to the greatest conceivable effect.

Sticks, stones, arrows, pellets, bullets, shells....delivered by muscle power, springs, gravity .... any form of energy at all.

....

I say "drone" and I discover that @dimsum has been right all along. Language matters.

I say "drone" and others seem to see Ahnuld.

I say "drone" and I mean a "Mavik", a "LAM", a "UAV", a "CCA", a "Loyal Wingman", an "RPAS".

I mean anything that I can chuck in the direction of the other and kill them at great distance to great effect before they have a chance to close with me and threaten my hold on the ground that is necessary for the continued existence of my family. And do this without risking my people directly, because every person that dies closing with the enemy diminishes my ability to hold my own ground.

These days I find the difference between a smart shell delivered from a tube, an intelligent guided rocket, a jet propelled UAV, or an electrically driven one vanishingly small. As far as I am concerned all of them are things I can chuck at the enemy to destroy them at distance and not risk my people.

With enough of those things I will cheerfully hold my ground and chuck things at them for as long as I have them available to me. The day that I run out of things to chuck is the day that I am over run.

Unlike the Guns, when they run out of things to chuck, I have no place to retire to.

....

Shell or drone, bullet or missile or CCAs --- all just things to chuck, all just OWUAVs.

And we need lots of them. To allow us to hold ground.

And there, I think, we agree.
 
Why is it important to hold ground?

I would suggest that it is important to hold ground because we are terrestrial creatures. We live on the ground. We move on the ground. We feed from the ground. We need our ground. Without our ground we cease to exist.

Equally though, if we die while attempting to hold ground, we cease to exist.

If we are reduced to tooth and claw and sharp pointy sticks then the odds do not favour our continued existence.

Far better to kill the other before they can close and destroy. And that means chucking things at them. In mass quantities and at the longest range possible to the greatest conceivable effect.
Agreed, but it’s not just an either/or option.

You need Armor, you need Troops to occupy the ground to give your depth attacks space so they don’t get destroyed in advance.


Sticks, stones, arrows, pellets, bullets, shells....delivered by muscle power, springs, gravity .... any form of energy at all.
And enemy with more options will use those options to best avail, and attempt to negate your options if you can’t counter theirs.


....

I say "drone" and I discover that @dimsum has been right all along. Language matters.

I say "drone" and others seem to see Ahnuld.

I say "drone" and I mean a "Mavik", a "LAM", a "UAV", a "CCA", a "Loyal Wingman", an "RPAS".

I mean anything that I can chuck in the direction of the other and kill them at great distance to great effect before they have a chance to close with me and threaten my hold on the ground that is necessary for the continued existence of my family. And do this without risking my people directly, because every person that dies closing with the enemy diminishes my ability to hold my own ground.
You’re making the mistake that you can conduct attrition and the enemy can’t.


These days I find the difference between a smart shell delivered from a tube, an intelligent guided rocket, a jet propelled UAV, or an electrically driven one vanishingly small. As far as I am concerned all of them are things I can chuck at the enemy to destroy them at distance and not risk my people.
What gives you that space?

With enough of those things I will cheerfully hold my ground and chuck things at them for as long as I have them available to me. The day that I run out of things to chuck is the day that I am over run.

Unlike the Guns, when they run out of things to chuck, I have no place to retire to.

....

Shell or drone, bullet or missile or CCAs --- all just things to chuck, all just OWUAVs.

And we need lots of them. To allow us to hold ground.

And there, I think, we agree.

At the end of the day you want overmatch, and to add another buzzword, decision dominance to make actions inside the enemies OODA loop.

LRF/LRPF are great, but they are not the only tool available. Simply because the world isn’t black and white and lines on a map aren’t always clearly defined.

You need Light Forces, you need Heavy Forces, you need SOF, you need aviation, you need LRF, because together they give you the options to seize and hold ground and separate and protect a population from enemies (from little green men, to armored corps) and conduct the fight on your terms.
 
Agreed, but it’s not just an either/or option.
Agreed
You need Armor, you need Troops to occupy the ground to give your depth attacks space so they don’t get destroyed in advance.
Agreed
But all the ground between here and there, wherever that is, is occupied by other people. Those people supply strategic depth between me and the other. Who do they prefer? Me? Or the Other? Are they opposed to me? Are they my enemy? Or are they opposed to my Other? Are they my ally? They don't have to be my friend but I would prefer that they were my ally.

And enemy with more options will use those options to best avail, and attempt to negate your options if you can’t counter theirs.
Absolutely.

You’re making the mistake that you can conduct attrition and the enemy can’t.
Nope. Explicitly I am not saying that.
I am saying that I want lots of things to chuck at the enemy and I want to be able to keep chucking them longer than the enemy can.
I want them to run out of bullets, and clay and money first.

What gives you that space?
See above.

At the end of the day you want overmatch, and to add another buzzword, decision dominance to make actions inside the enemies OODA loop.
Accepted.

LRF/LRPF are great, but they are not the only tool available. Simply because the world isn’t black and white and lines on a map aren’t always clearly defined.
Stop that. Stop assuming that just because I address one possibility it means that other possibilities are not viable.
As I keep saying, over and over, there is a need for balance. There is utility in sword, shield and bow. William Blake had it right.

Bring me my Bow of burning gold:
Bring me my arrows of desire:
Bring me my Spear: O clouds unfold!
Bring me my Chariot of fire!

I will not cease from Mental Fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand:


You need Light Forces, you need Heavy Forces, you need SOF, you need aviation, you need LRF, because together they give you the options to seize and hold ground and separate and protect a population from enemies (from little green men, to armored corps) and conduct the fight on your terms.
Agreed
No dispute.

All I am saying is that lots of artillery, lots of air force, lots of space force, lots of navy means that you can preserve those highly valuable close combat forces for as long as possible and ensure that they are on hand when you really need them.

A lack of shells in 1915 coincided with the lack of quality close combat forces because all the trained effectives of the British Expeditionary Force had died on the retreat from Mons.
 
"The British Army should be a projectile to be fired by the British Navy." Edward Grey, 1st Viscount Grey of Fallodon

Edward Grey, 1st Viscount Grey of Fallodon, KG, PC, DL, FZS (25 April 1862 – 7 September 1933), better known as Sir Edward Grey, was a British Liberal statesman and the main force behind British foreign policy in the era of the First World War.

(Not the Grey of the Grey Cup)

Canada doesn't have a projectile so much as it has three pre-fragmented submunitions. And it lacks a suitable launcher.
 
  • Humorous
Reactions: ueo
Back
Top