maddogdrivethru.net

Open all night
It is currently Mon Dec 18, 2017 10:41 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 253 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Military Thread
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 12:46 am 
Offline
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 9530
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 10688
The official policy of the U.S. (and the U.S.S.R., and China, and every other nuclear power as far as I'm aware . . . except DPRK) is to: "NOT ENGAGE in first strikes with nuclear weapons." This is the essence of MAD: 'Yes I do have a Doomsday bomb and I'm pointing in the general direction of your head, but don't worry. I promise to never fire it first. It is only there in case you fire first . . . '

This is most definitely the agreement which emerged between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. round about the time of the Bay of Pigs at latest. Most of the tension that existed after that was just based on vague posturing, but the official "promise" by both sides was that they would never fire first. It was a sane agreement because both sides understood if they did fire, it was going to be Armageddon for both sides.

Obviously this doesn't work with DPRK, nor would it necessarily work with Iran or any other nascent nuclear power that might aspire to the club.

I've jested several times to "Nuke 'em now, before it is too late," and while that is a purely speculative argument, it does bear consideration. Still, it cannot be taken seriously. We've got to wait for them to vaporize Guam or Hawaii or some other target and then nuke 'em . . . slightly after, it is slightly too late . . . Unless we could intercept and neutralize their missile in mid flight. Then there would just be a bit more nuclear wreckage on the bottom of the ocean I reckon.

_________________
Nero: So what is your challenge?

Anthro: Answer question #2: How do "Climate Change models" mathematically control for the natural forces which caused the Ice Age(s) to come and go . . . repeatedly?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military Thread
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 6:48 am 
Offline
His Most Gracious Majesty, Commie of the Year
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:44 pm
Posts: 7394
Reputation points: 15171
Anthropoid wrote:
The official policy of the U.S. (and the U.S.S.R., and China, and every other nuclear power as far as I'm aware . . . except DPRK) is to: "NOT ENGAGE in first strikes with nuclear weapons." This is the essence of MAD: 'Yes I do have a Doomsday bomb and I'm pointing in the general direction of your head, but don't worry. I promise to never fire it first. It is only there in case you fire first . . . '

This is most definitely the agreement which emerged between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. round about the time of the Bay of Pigs at latest. Most of the tension that existed after that was just based on vague posturing, but the official "promise" by both sides was that they would never fire first. It was a sane agreement because both sides understood if they did fire, it was going to be Armageddon for both sides.

Obviously this doesn't work with DPRK, nor would it necessarily work with Iran or any other nascent nuclear power that might aspire to the club.

I've jested several times to "Nuke 'em now, before it is too late," and while that is a purely speculative argument, it does bear consideration. Still, it cannot be taken seriously. We've got to wait for them to vaporize Guam or Hawaii or some other target and then nuke 'em . . . slightly after, it is slightly too late . . . Unless we could intercept and neutralize their missile in mid flight. Then there would just be a bit more nuclear wreckage on the bottom of the ocean I reckon.


Islamic leaders are notorious for taking high risk bets from awkward positions in order to claim some "champion of Islam" title. Even if they fail, they believe they will still get rewarded for fighting the good fight.

NK does seem like extremely cynical leader simply smashing the "oh no, we must appease them" button on Western lefties & softies like Bama and Merkel. "O jee, I guess we need to send ten more freighters of cargo to them now so they will be swayed by our superior morals!"

Then again with feudal god emperor despots their own shit eventually starts to sink in with the heirs at some point. Literally having kick&cry tantrums while wearing one's uniform with the highest decorations invented all dangling in grotesque contrast to the complete failure of character that they're awarded to.

At least they managed to evade the inbreeding trap of the Pharaohs but then again much good that does to them..

_________________
All scientists across the world work for US Democratic Party


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military Thread
PostPosted: Fri Nov 24, 2017 4:02 pm 
Offline
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 9530
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 10688
Moderate degrees of "Inbreeding" are apparently good in "small doses" and when the population also receives a reasonable influx of "exotics."

_________________
Nero: So what is your challenge?

Anthro: Answer question #2: How do "Climate Change models" mathematically control for the natural forces which caused the Ice Age(s) to come and go . . . repeatedly?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military Thread
PostPosted: Fri Nov 24, 2017 4:37 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:19 pm
Posts: 23983
Reputation points: 16925
Here is what Maddog Mattis had to say:

"Any missile fired at Guam and it's on" :lol:

he was trying to make it clear to Fatboi that it would be a very bad idea.

_________________
I haven't figured out how to the block thingy works but if anyone alters my posts I will become really, really angry and throw monkey poop out of my cage.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military Thread
PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 6:49 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 26968
Location: West coast of the east coast
Reputation points: 16223
https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htarm ... 71203.aspx

Quote:
Armor: German Tank Force Barely There

December 3, 2017: The German effort to rebuild some of its Cold War era Leopard 2 tank force has encountered problems. It has gotten so bad that currently Turkey, Chile, Greece, Singapore, Spain, Switzerland and Poland each have more operational Leopard 2 tanks than Germany (which had over 2,000 in the early 1990s). This odd situation was revealed in November 2017 when it was discovered that 53 Leopard 2s were unavailable while undergoing upgrades and 86 were inoperable because of spare parts shortages. That meant Germany only had 95 Leopard 2 tanks that were combat ready. That’s 39 percent of the 244 Leopard 2s currently available to the army.

This was all attributed to a 2015 program to expand and upgrade the tank force. That involved taking 104 retired (in the 1990s) Leopard 2A4 tanks and putting them back into service after refurbishing the older tanks and upgrading them to the A7V standard. The 104 reactivated Leopard 2A7Vs won’t begin arriving until 2019 and it will take until 2023 to complete the process. There may be further additions to the active tank force depending on how much of a threat Russia continues to pose. As of the end of 2017 the actual German tank force has been reduced to fewer than a hundred operational tanks. How could this happen?

Most Germans believed peace would last after the communist governments Russia had imposed on most East European nations after 1945 suddenly collapsed in 1989 followed by the Soviet Union dissolving in 1991. That marked the end of the Cold War. On top of that Germany was reunited in 1990 and the Russian equipped East German military was largely scrapped. At that point the German Leopard 2 fleet shrank over 85 percent (from 2,000 to 225). Germany also retired over older 2,200 Leopard 1s. Most of the retired Leopards were sold off or scrapped. But nearly a thousand Leopard 2s were put in storage just in case. Until 2014 Germany believed that those retired Leopard 2s would eventually be sold off or used for spare parts. A minority of Germans thought there was still a risk of a renewed Russian threat and so plans were made to keep upgrading Leopard 2s for foreign customers (who were now operating most of the remaining Leopard 2s) and the 225 Germany kept on duty.

Continuing to encourage Leopard 2 upgrades made business sense because back in the 1990s the two most modern (and effective) tanks were the American M1 and the Leopard 2. In many respects the Germans were just trying to stay competitive with the M1 upgrades. For example in 2014 Germany, Canada and Denmark agreed to upgrade over a hundred of their Leopard 2A6 tanks with ATTICA thermal imaging systems used by the tank commander and gunner. In most modern tanks both the commander and the gunner have high tech sights, usually with thermal (heat imaging) capability. The ATTICA sight is 3rd generation and that means images are sharper, more easily linked with other systems and the equipment is more reliable and easier to maintain. Third generation also means the engineers have added more wish-list items they have been receiving from earlier users over the years. The upgrade costs about $100,000 per sight and give Leopard 2 users something most M1 users already have. .

In 2009 Germany began upgrading its few active duty Leopard tanks from the 2A6 to the A7+ standard. That would include more armor on the sides and rear (especially to protect against RPGs), more external cameras (so the crew inside could see anything in any direction, day or night), a remote control machine-gun station on top of the turret, better fire control and combat control computers and displays, more powerful auxiliary power unit and better air conditioning, and numerous other minor improvements to mobility (engine, track laying system, wheels and related gear), sound proofing and the thermal sights. This would increase the weight of the tank to nearly 70 tons.

The Leopard 2A7+ also got more effective ammunition for the 120mm gun. This included fragmentation shells that detonate above or behind a target. Non-lethal ammo has also been developed for the Leopard 2A7+. The manufacturer also announced it was beginning work on Leopard 3 (a major upgrade of the Leopard 2) before the end of the decade.

In 2016 the Leopard got its latest upgrade; the A7V. This added a few features to the A7+ including a 20 KW auxiliary power supply so the stationary tank could continue to operate all its electronics when the main engine was shut down. The other addition was the ability to easily add additional armor modules.

The 55 ton Leopard 2A6 was introduced in 2006, is still the most commonly used model, and is a contemporary of the American M-1. The 2A6 model has a stabilizer (for firing on the move) and a thermal imager (for seeing through night, mist and sand storms.) Germany has been selling less capable (but refurbished) 2A4s since the 1990s. This enabled many nations to inexpensively upgrade their aging armored forces. Since 2000 many nations have upgraded to the A6 standard. Most users prefer to continue upgrading their Leopards, mainly because there are no new tanks to buy. Thus the appeal of an upgrade to the Leopard 2A7+ standard.

Until the 1980s, the German Leopard I was considered one of the best tanks available. Entering service in the late 1960s, it was the first post-World War II German tank design. Although a contemporary of the American M-60A3, the German tank was considered superior. For this reason, Germany was able to export Leopards to many nations. Most of the 4,744 produced (plus 1,741 Leopard chassis adapted to other uses, like recovery and anti-aircraft) have since been retired (in storage) or scrapped. Many owners may have to melt down theirs Leopard Is, for there's not much of a market left for 44 ton tanks, even those equipped with a lot of nifty upgrades. The original buyers of Leopard I have already flooded the market but now only Leopard 2s are wanted.

The German Leopard 2 appeared in 1979 and was an immediate export hit, especially to replace elderly U.S. M-60 tanks (a 1960s design.) But when the Cold War ended in 1991 many Leopard 2 users looked to sell off many of their Leopard 2s. Most of the original 3,500 Leopard 2s have been sold as second-hand vehicles to Austria, Canada, Norway, Sweden, Singapore, Denmark, Finland, Poland, Portugal, Greece, Chile, Turkey and Spain. Originally, West Germany bought 2,125 new Leopard 2 tanks, the Netherlands 445, Switzerland 370, Sweden 120, Spain 219 and Greece 170. Although a contemporary of the U.S. M-1, many consider the 62 ton Leopard 2 a superior tank, even though the M-1 has much more combat experience and subsequent upgrades based on the experience in battle.

In 2003 both Germany and the United States believed the usefulness of heavy tanks like the M-1 and Leopard 2 were over. Then came Iraq and Afghanistan where it was found that these traditional designs were still very useful, especially with the most modern accessories (like thermal sights, vidcams for all-round visibility from inside the tank and modern air-conditioning systems that can withstand tropical heat). Thus upgrading the Leopard 2s remains a big business.



They could field 95 tanls. :roll:

If I'm not mistaken that is basically a tank brigade.


Quote:
How many tanks would be in a US tanks brigade, division, company? How many men?
Answer


1 Answer
Mike Page
Mike Page, worked at U.S. Army
Answered Dec 16, 2015
The current organization for a U.S. tank company is that it contains 3 tank platoons of 4 tanks each for a total of 12 - plus 2 additional tanks in the company headquarter section. That makes 14 tanks in a tank company. There are 3 tank companies in every tank battalion for a total of 42 tanks - plus 2 additional tanks in the battalion headquarters for a total of 44 tanks. Armor brigades may have from 2 to 3 tank battalions. An armored division normally has 3 but could have 4 brigades which might have as many as 7 or 8 tank battalions altogether in the division.

https://www.quora.com/How-many-tanks-wo ... w-many-men

I did find more specific information for the German Army:

The Germany Army OOB (on Wikipedia) shows that they have 2 Panzer divisions with the following tank units as part of those two divisions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure ... erman_Army

1st Panzerdivision
-- 9th Tank Demonstration Brigade (Panzerlehrbrigade 9)
------ 93rd Tank Demonstration Battalion (Panzerlehrbataillon 93) in Munster with 44x Leopard 2A6 main battle tanks
-- 21st Panzer Brigade
-------203rd Tank Battalion (Panzerbataillon 203) in Augustdorf with 44x Leopard 2A6 main battle tanks

10th Panzerdivision
---12th Armored Brigade
----- 8th Mountain Tank Battalion (Gebirgspanzerbataillon 8) in Pfreimd (2x of 4x tank companies active) with 28x Leopard 2A6 main battle tanks
-----104th Tank Battalion (Panzerbataillon 104) in Pfreimd with 44x Leopard 2A6 main battle tanks
---37th Mechanized Infantry Brigade
-----393rd Panzer Battalion (Panzerbataillon 393) in Bad Frankenhausen with 44x Leopard 2A6 main battle tanks

I left off all of the other non-tank components
You can review the link to see those included.

So by my count if Germany's Panzer units were at full strength they would need a total of 204 functional tanks.
(88 Leopard 2 2A6 for the 1st Panzer Division and 116 Leopard 2 2A6 for the 10th Panzer Division)

Yet according to the article they only had 95 Leopard 2 tanks that were combat ready.

_________________
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military Thread
PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 7:18 pm 
Offline
First Sergeant

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 9336
Location: Eskridge, KS
Reputation points: 11289
IIRC US Army current Armor/Mech Battalions are actually using

2 tank companies and
2 mech companies each

They retain the old armor and mech bn names .. but the battalions are all structured identically.

==

But it is shocking to think the kraut army is down to one panzer corps at 45% strength !!

_________________
Go trumpf Go !!!
(will the resident return to being the President?)
(will the rainbow shack return to being the White House?)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military Thread
PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:39 pm 
Offline
First Sergeant

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 9336
Location: Eskridge, KS
Reputation points: 11289
@chi

US Army combined arms battalions within a Armored/Mech Brigade

Image

_________________
Go trumpf Go !!!
(will the resident return to being the President?)
(will the rainbow shack return to being the White House?)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military Thread
PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 8:38 am 
Offline
His Most Gracious Majesty, Commie of the Year
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:44 pm
Posts: 7394
Reputation points: 15171
jwilkerson wrote:
IIRC US Army current Armor/Mech Battalions are actually using

2 tank companies and
2 mech companies each

They retain the old armor and mech bn names .. but the battalions are all structured identically.

==

But it is shocking to think the kraut army is down to one panzer corps at 45% strength !!


The Mighty Finnish Army has more Panzers than Germany! :lol: :lol: :lol:


Truly the mighty have fallen low.

Ps. the ATVs carry Stinger crates. Once remaining shipments of 40 Leopard 2's are finished Finland has 200 of them. We also have one of the largest artillery forces in Europe. Thanks for selling us M270D1's!
Image

_________________
All scientists across the world work for US Democratic Party


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military Thread
PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:08 am 
Offline
First Sergeant

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 9336
Location: Eskridge, KS
Reputation points: 11289
Quote:
... The Mighty Finnish Army has more Panzers than Germany ..


OMG ... we're in trouble now ... :D

_________________
Go trumpf Go !!!
(will the resident return to being the President?)
(will the rainbow shack return to being the White House?)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military Thread
PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:24 pm 
Offline
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 9530
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 10688
I wonder . . .

Artillery obviously accounted for the majority of combat casualties in WWI (I forget exactly, but I want to say something like 75%?).

I believe this generally held true in WWII, though perhaps smaller proportion?

Korea, Vietnam, and the rest of the conflicts of the 20th century not sure. Except: Iran-Iraq war, here again, I believe artillery was incredibly lethal, accounting for nearly WWI levels of casualties. Desert Storm: if you count air-launched ordnance of one sort or another and "missiles" as a type of "artillery" then once again, it would seem that standoff bombardment was incredibly lethal.

But then, most U.S. casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan were from IEDs and small arms or shoulder-fired explosives . . . What say you maddogs? Why is artillery sometimes so effective (at various points in the last ~100 years) and other times so "ineffective" (which I put in quotes because, if you don't use it, it is obviously ineffective, but for different reasons than if you DO use it and it is ineffective).

I'm not entirely clear how effective artillery has been in Ukraine, which would seem to be a reasonable analogue of what an actual war between USSR and one of her neighbors would look like. I get the impression that: the massed use of standoff bombardment has at times caused disproportionate destruction and death, but the these types of attacks and counter-attacks have not been maintained at anything like a regular frequency.

_________________
Nero: So what is your challenge?

Anthro: Answer question #2: How do "Climate Change models" mathematically control for the natural forces which caused the Ice Age(s) to come and go . . . repeatedly?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 253 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group