guns

2666 readers

55 users here now

“Under no pretext"

Rules (Under review):

1. NO BUYING, SELLING OR TRADING of guns or accessories. Take that to Reddit and /r/GunAccessoriesForSale or Armslist.com
1. Censor all personally identifiable information in posts including serial numbers on firearms.
1. Any post or comment advocating illegal action will be removed and the poster warned. A second infraction will result in a ban.
1. Unironically suggesting the SKS as a usable rifle in the 21st Century when there are things like the AK and AR that cost only a bit more might result in a ban, it depends on how we feel.
1. Discussion of hunting is acceptable but please put "CW: hunting" in post titles. Debating the ethicality of hunting is also fine, but keep it civil and don't derail other people's threads.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

Wake@hexbear.net

Sulvy@hexbear.net

Could having a post-NATO lightly equipped military actually be a good thing for future war? (hexbear.net)

submitted 5 months ago by Des@hexbear.net to c/guns@hexbear.net

15 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Didn't know where else to post this.

I was thinking while looking at Mexico's military force on paper vs say the U.S. for a hypothetical invasion/occupation. Like many modern non-NATO forces, it lacks heavy armor, combat aircraft, naval vessels, etc. But with dronewar now ascendant, could this be less a liability and more an advantage? Assuming one could rapidly equip and train their light infantry forces with a mix of both small and medium sized drones?

It seems it would be easier to acquire tens of thousands of commercial off the shelf drones and use old stockpiles of munitions and train young, gaming experienced soldiers to operate them then build or acquire increasingly rare tanks or fighters. And having such a light military means it should be easier to shift to this doctrine then say doing so with a lumbering NATO-style behemoth like the U.S. with it's MIC.

Could this be a cheap strategy especially for latin american nations to pump up their military forces in the face of U.S. aggression? Make it too costly to engage, as well as cozy up to China for cheap drone parts.

Besides drones, all the rest of the military spending would be best directed towards air defense systems. This is the only bottleneck I see since these are sophisticated systems on par with tanks and fighters. I mean the drones can save you from ground invasion but you can still be leveled from the sky. I suppose until we get cheap air defense drones, which I think might be the future. (imagine loitering long range air defense drones with simple stealth tech; the barrage balloon of the 2040s).

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] junebug2@hexbear.net 6 points 5 months ago

i think everything you said is true for nations looking to go to war in the next three to five years. After that, i’d imagine more specialized models and tactics will emerge, and versions made with civilian parts will be worse. More importantly, it would probably be best for countries to start their own drone and drone munition production. It’s about training engineers and technicians as much as it is about making weapons.

i had some other thoughts but they were really long, sorry

i think the economy of combining off the shelf drones with old munitions is possible because Ukraine and Russia have access to the Chinese markets for drone parts and lots of Soviet munitions stockpiled up. i don’t know if your average country has old stockpiles to that extent. That also has impact on design; having a big pile of surplus mortar rounds encourages designs meant to use them. It could be that in ten years, everyone serious uses some kind of shaped charge made for drones especially.

i also don’t think that drones make heavy armor or navies a waste of money. Capital ship navies have been a waste of money/ a national prestige project since the 80s at least. Back then, of course, no one had to worry about what the navy was for, because any serious conflict meant nuclear war. Battleships emerged and became obsolete within like 20 years (naval aircraft and torpedoes). Aircraft carriers emerged and became obsolete within like 50 years (anti-ship ballistic missiles). Submarines are also there. People are going to keep fighting on the water. Drones, missiles, and satellites change the details, but the big issue with boat fighting is and always has been finding where the hell the other person is and then getting there fast. Light patrol boats, missiles, and loitering underwater drones are probably going to be the budget navy of the future. i don’t think the parts for UUVs are as easy to get as quadcopters.

For heavy armor, the big problem in Ukraine is massed armor, because both sides have so many radars, satellites, and sensors that multiple vehicles are an immediately detectable and attractive target. They still use lone tanks as armored fire support, and IFVs and motorcycles together provide supporting fire for rapid movement. In other wars, countries or organizations with no armor have made technicals, which are all of the fire support of the above without protection. Most countries won’t be dealing with NATO vs Pact, farce edition, and will probably have zero satellites involved. Soldiers with motor transport will move faster than soldiers without, and soldiers with fire support will best soldiers without. If a T-70 with a cope cage is good enough for the Russians, i’m sure even the jankiest tank can be modified for a non-NATO force.

Combat aircraft is a tougher one, because i don’t think there’s been a real showdown between most air forces and most air defenses. Like yeah, that one Lightning got downed in Serbia in the 90s, and a bunch of MiGs and Mirages got wasted in the Gulf War, but those both had too many outside factors. India and Pakistan were probably both really glad to have jets during their little war, even if India lost some. We still can’t tell if the Zionists bypassed Iranian air defense systems because they were bad or because of access to Azeri airspace. The other thing worth considering is that the last time the US faced a real air defense challenge and took casualties was Vietnam. They’ve built all their planes, missiles, and radars since then to make sure it never happens again.