[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / dempart / flutter / mascot / mewch / tingles / vichan / wg / xivlg ]

/k/ - Weapons

Salt raifus and raifu accessories
Winner of the 68rd Attention-Hungry Games
/d/ - Home of Headswap and Detachable Girl Threads

January 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Email
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


There's no discharge in the war!

File: f8538fcf5b4b995⋯.jpg (70.59 KB, 531x323, 531:323, 10-2.jpg)

File: 3eb3fda5baf2b6b⋯.png (320.75 KB, 958x419, 958:419, 2407875_orig.png)

File: 078cbb3239c1100⋯.png (1016.73 KB, 1002x578, 501:289, 4674838_orig.png)

File: 63d2ab9970e0c5e⋯.gif (142.32 KB, 960x640, 3:2, Maersk-SClass-FullConversi….gif)

File: 3a9d7ec917c3e80⋯.jpg (22.85 KB, 450x304, 225:152, stobar-mercante-vs-ktty-vs….jpg)

49914f  No.640280

Does the idea of building military versions of cargo ships make sense?

49914f  No.640287

File: 003f0d5e882a173⋯.jpg (63.84 KB, 576x405, 64:45, floating_base.jpg)

File: a438d4e5c6dd543⋯.jpeg (84.25 KB, 1280x960, 4:3, Mobile_offshore_base.jpeg.jpeg)

Also, the DoD came up with a floating base concept.


9fd5e0  No.640305

Only in shallow waters


e93569  No.640308

>>640280

I'm just imagining what a prize a single fully loaded vessel of that size would be to sink. What would it be equivalent to? 75 miles of border wall or so?


1b9fd2  No.640346

Sealift Command has plans in place whereby civilian cargo ships are used in times of war for expressly military purposes. Otherwise the navy has a fleet of cargo vessels of varying sort to serve the current needs of the armed forces in addition to contracted shipping with private companies.


336b8b  No.640390

>>640308

>I'm just imagining what a prize a single fully loaded vessel of that size would be to sink.

The Shughart-class has a total cargo area of 29 thousand square meters. If you loaded those full of HMWV.

A single HMMWV of the newest model costs 220.000$, is 4,54 meters long and 2,16 meters wide (surface area: roughly 10 square meters).

If securing the cargo takes a little extra space, we can make that 15m².

Thus a Shughart-class RoRo ship could take 1933 HMMWVs, which are worth 425,26 million US$

Maybe +95 Liters of Gasoline per HMMWV too, so at a price of something like 1,50$, that would be 275.452$ more, so something like 425,5 million US$in total.

HMMWVs aren't the most expensive shit you can put on a RORO. Let's say it is transporting M1A1 tanks, fully loaded and fueled.

That's 1 tank for 36m², or 805 tanks per RoRo.

If one M1A1 Abrahams costs something like 10 million, you would lose 8,05 billion US$.

So it depends entirely on what you load those vessels with.


f44737  No.640397

Yes, it can. Put missiles on it, and more missiles.


f7f7e6  No.640399

>>640280

Most Soviet light/medium merchants were designed from the start to be easily militarized into transports or tenders. Big RORO and container ships like your pics were considered worthless for military purposes because any such ship was expected to be sunk by commerce-raiding subs within a matter of weeks.


e93569  No.640401

>>640390

Thanks. I appreciate the autism, as I was too lazy to do that background research & calc myself.


3065a1  No.640404

the US military gets around its lack of expeditionary assets and small airlift capacity by prestaging heavy assets around the world on cargo ships.

for about 20 years we had container ships full of M1 tanks ready to be sent to any hot zone that needed a heavy brigade.

converting a container ship into an aircraft carrier isn't hard to do, actually. they're designed to be more stable when topheavy. this is why the mercy class had to have their superstructure deliberately overbuilt, so they wouldn't capsize with all that empty space inside.

as for actual armed merchant vessels, it depends on what threats they face and how valuable the cargo they carry.

typically it's easier to just pair them with escorts, but some stuff like point defence systems, torpedo countermeasures, and ASW equipment would very much be useful.


336b8b  No.640447

>>640404

I don't want to derail the thread, but you are reddit-spacing, faggot.


d33be4  No.640471

>MLP interface

I know that has nothing to do with what I immediately thought of, but I still had a giggle


a98a39  No.640575

Modern day military ships are built of aluminum and instead of having weapons protected within a hull they bolt them on the deck. Also those weapons as only dangerous to civilian shipping, most of it is light subsonic missiles that any CIWS can shoot down all day and torpedoes with a few miles range. USN for example isn't even a threat to a foreign military, it's completely incapable of doing damage to military targets. Essentially what it does is waltz offshore an enemy, and then launch airplanes and cruise missiles to bomb civilian infrastructure, until the enemys own civilians force their government to submit.

A civilian cargo ship is just as good, just close all the hatches, bolt some bottle rockets to the deck, and you have the equivalent of a modern frigate.


a7a448  No.640601

>>640280

No. Eggs in baskets, something something.


9fd5e0  No.640641

>>640601

I'm hungry


3065a1  No.640646

>>640447

are you retarded? because that's the sort of thing someone who is retarded would say.

when making separate points you're supposed to separate them so they don't look like they're in the same paragraph. this is how the English language has worked for at least two-hundred years.

How do you not understand this?


a98a39  No.640658

>>640646

People are dumb. The "reddit spacing" meme came from the fact that reddit formatting is easier if you multi space your text, rather than single spacing. If you single space it just looks like normal lined text, you have to doublespace to do it.

So reddit text would look like this:

The pleasure of Buzby's company is what I most enjoy.

He put a tack on Miss Yancy's chair, when she called him a horrible boy.

At the end of the month, he was flinging two kittens, across the width of the room.

I counted on his schemes to reveal the way to escape my gloom.

Double spacing in particular, not single spacing, and not paragraphs. But retarded children on chans wanted to look cool by "calling out redditors" so we're stuck with this stupid fucking meme.


08c4da  No.640673

>>640280

Terrible idea that already started deceit through "loaded" political targets. Situations where ships carrying both war gear and civilians gets sunk without escort and the propaganda office publishes that a cruise liner gets attacked for no justified reason.


42327c  No.640678

>>640646

>>640658

>not using paragraphs


1b9fd2  No.640687

>>640678

That is what paragraphing is. He is paragraphing. You do realize paragraphing is based on content and not length, right? If the idea only has one line worth of content then you leave it at that. You don't lump separate ideas together just to form a block of text in the name of paragraphing.

>when making separate points you're supposed to separate them so they don't look like they're in the same paragraph


49914f  No.640688

>>640575

Could an enemy pull that same tactic on the US considering how many people were upset that they might have to pay more on their electronics from China?


336b8b  No.640699

>>640646

a) double spacing means a double press of the space-bar, not double press of the enter key

b)This was a single press of the enter key

c) this was a double press of the enter key

d) >>640658 you used three presses of the enter key, which looks like that.

I personally use double line-breaks to separate different areas of my replies, for example an introduction from the main argument, and single line-breaks to separate new topics inside of each of those.

So for example I could use single line-breaks like this to make a new point in my main argument, and if this text got a little too long or confusing use them again to give the reader room to digest what they have read so far.

By adding a double line-break you are adding an entire free line with no text whatsoever. This is sometimes very good and serves as a visual indicator that the previous part of your text is not only visually separated from the following, but may also be disconnected from a content perspective.

Again, I am not trying to derail the thread at all, but hitting enter three times after every single sentence like >>640404 did is entirely retarded. Also: the first letter of the first word of every sentence should be capital.

>inb4 I just took the bait


3065a1  No.640708

File: 712194ff28dcd43⋯.jpg (160.41 KB, 1024x683, 1024:683, competition_weld.jpg)

>>640699

show me where I referred to double-spacing you fucking idiot. i don't know how people do things in whatever bullshit language you grew up with but in english separate thoughts get separate paragraphs. these paragraphs can be single sentences, or multiple sentences, depending on how many words you need to convey point you're making.

we also make spaces so what we're typing doesn't make a wall of text that is tedious to read.

pull your head out of your ass and take a walk outside for some fresh air, cunt.

>>640678

>implying paragraphs need to be more than one sentence rather than be separate self-contained idea chains.

>>640678

holy shit the education system failed all of you.

>>640575

While I have no doubt they've got lots of military vessels that are made from all manner of materials, I'd say it's most likely military warships make use of steel more than aluminum for one big reason:

Steel is easy to weld, and can be used in all of the different flavors from stainless steel to mild steel to tool steel. meanwhile anodized aluminum is hands-down the best and really only choice for boats, due to corrosion resistance, and is a pain in the ass to weld.

with steel you can just run a flux core beads all goddam day and just chug along and get a welded steel hull done pretty quickly. but with anodized aluminum your only option is TIG. more than that, welding anodized aluminum is the exact opposite of TIG welding literally everything else; you're basically making a series of tack welds where you hit a single spot on the joind with really high amperage to break through the thick oxide layer, just long enough to feed a glob of filler rod into it before the shit burns through. Pic related, it's a typical anodized aluminum weld. due to the nature of welding it, aluminum oxide takes an awful lot longer to weld, and a lot of the typical weld joints are simply not possible. for example: forget about getting 100% penetration on thick pieces without an awful lot of grinding.

for these manufacturing considerations, steel is generally better for most large production vessels.


443971  No.640710

>a) double spacing means a double press of the space-bar, not double press of the enter key

Patently wrong you chimp.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/double-space

>Abloo abloo, I am not trying to derail the thread at all

Then fuck off with your idiotic ESL level drivel. 2 out of your 3 postings has nothing to do with the topic.


a98a39  No.640713

File: 059f4b24cfb477d⋯.png (151.73 KB, 624x305, 624:305, drone-hole.png)

>>640699

https://www.computerhope.com/jargon/d/doubspac.htm

https://www.reddit.com/r/CasualConversation/comments/4xk1a8/do_you_use_a_double_space_after_a_sentence_or_a/

All due respect I think I know english better than you. Double spacing is doubling the space between lines of text. And reddit spacing is the characteristic double enter which they use to make their sentences not look like shit on a shitty coded website.

>I am not trying to derail the thread at all

Jesus Christ then why did you even mention it?

>>640688

Someone else would have to build a navy which can only fight cargo ships, or they'd waste their weaponry aimed at navy ships towards civilian shipping. I think east bloc only had these light subsonic weapons on aircraft.

>>640708

That's true, but the point is that their hull is paper thin and made of stressed skin. It's kind of like that corrugated siding on a house, it doesn't provide any protection except from wind, picrel got penetrated by a tiny target drone.


3065a1  No.640862

File: 28e6c7a4a059e84⋯.jpg (98.32 KB, 900x675, 4:3, MV_Blue_Marlin_carrying_US….jpg)

>>640713

the hull may be thin but the structural members inside HAVE to be much thicker.

It's the difference between monocoque and semi-monocoque.

with monocoque structures the body is the frame and has all the rigidity to support its own weight and all expected stresses. this is good for things where you need a thick skin and don't mind a lower production time to fabricate all the thick steel body sections. pretty much all armored fighting vehicles are built like this. because the armor is so thick there's really no point to having a support frame.

semi-monocoque is where there's an internal skeleton to support everything, and the skin is just there to separate the inside from the outside. pretty much every large vessel is made this way. with strong internal members providing form and structure with a thin hull keeping the water out. the advantage to this is it allows for a lighter overall structure for the same displacement, so more internal volume can be devoted to more or heavier stuff.

even back when battleships were the queens of the sea, cruisers and below rarely had armor. this is because cruisers, destroyers, and frigates are not ships of the line; their jobs all require speed and endurance.

frigates are good for patrol and day-to-day connectivity in peacetime. in wartime they almost exlusively act as pickets to warn of incoming enemy fleets or as sub hunters.

Destroyers came about as specialized frigates configured to counter specific threats, i.e. sub destroyers, torpedo destroyers "for anti ship work," anti-aircraft destroyers, etc. over time they just combined all these roles into one and now destroyers just do all of those jobs by default.

Cruisers were developed specifically for the cruising mission. hence the name. typically frigates and later destroyers wuld perform this job as they're the ones that had the speed to do it. the problem was that neither was particularly good at punching up, being mostly configured for threats that weren't exactly on the same horizontal plane. so the cruiser was developed with the speed of a destroyer, better range, and better weaponry to effectively deal with whatever it could catch or couldn't outrun. while this typically necessitates a larger hull, the convention that there is a hard size association with the classes with frigates being smallest and cruisers being biggest, and destroyers being in the middle is inaccurate. the ships are big enough to perform their missions, and typically a destroyer can be just as big as a cruiser, and a frigate can be just as big as a destroyer. what matters is their role in the fleet, and there is a shitload of overlap between the three.

i told you all that to tell you this:

the ship classes we use today have been around for at least a hundred years, in the case of frigates it's been around since the 1650s, and they have never been armored.

hull construction techniques have not actually changed much since WW1, with most of the advancements occurring in armament, hydrodynamics, powerplant, meterial sciences, and superstructure.

while it's not exactly impossible to put anodized aluminum over steel, it's kind of not the thing you want to weld together. being vastly dissimilar metals and all. further it is very much easier to patch a hole in steel than it is to patch a hole in aluminum.

bee-tee-dubs, the skin of a vessel isn't actually that thin. it's all made from plate, which has a minumum thickness of 6mm, or 1/4". it's very easy to use plate that could stop small arms fire, but they sheer mass of the vessel combined with the forces at play mean that any time it contacts something of large mass it's going to fail and make a hole, and it's a lot easier to repair a hole in plate than it is to bang out a dent. it's actually the real reason why the USS Missouri still has that dent from when it got hit by a kamikaze. easier to leave it alone than to cut the whole section out and replace it.

remember, the USS Cole got a hole blown in the side of her, and she was back in service in about a year, which is pretty normal for a large vessel.


49914f  No.640876

>>640713

Would something like a containerized Pershing 2 missile be game changing,as in a self contained system that fits in a shipping container for sneeky business?

I know they make shipping container missiles, but nothing like a Pershing 2.


5f7b29  No.640883

File: b690e2b006c30d1⋯.png (163.89 KB, 400x400, 1:1, ClipboardImage.png)

Why not cargo versions of military ships?


f7f7e6  No.640886

>>640862

Please never post about naval history again. There is so much wrong with this post that I don't even know where to start.


3065a1  No.640888

File: 6915f8008d32498⋯.jpg (442.35 KB, 1280x876, 320:219, tumblr_pjnv9arRzT1w636mro1….jpg)

>>640876

>hiding missiles in shipping containers.

let me tell you something about weaponized shipping containers.

I fucking hate them.

I hate them because they are stupidly effective. literally the only way to tell what's inside is to either open it up and look or hit it with an X-ray machine. both of which require you to be right next to it. you can literally disguise a VLS array as a stack of shippong containers and do to a region what the fifth fleet did to Iraq.

the US navy had an idea for a ship kind of like this, called the arsenal ship, that was basically just a big missile barge. pic related. it never really got approved because it's purpose-built to do only ONE thing, and you only really need that when you're at war with an opponent that can fight you on equal footing.

i got a story to tell you about when I was doing counter IED instructor course. they showed us this video where haji has built a bunch of rockets out of propane bottles, 100-gal rockets being he motor case and little bbq-sized tanks being the warhead. they loaded at least a hundred of these into a shipping trailer, angled like maybe 32° forward. they drove this tractor trailer setup to a spot, and left. when the shit went off it was in perfect position to shell the living FUCK out of a FOB a good ways away.

so yeah. using civilian commercial assets to do covert missile spam is a very effective strategy. not exactly a game-changer, but very hard to counter, especially from the sea.

>>640883

because military vessels and cargo vessels are very different with very different needs.

military vessels NEED to be fast, and they NEED to be able to take a beating.

cargo vessels need to be durable and have lots of internal volume, and they need to be fuel efficient.

an tanker might work as a gunboat, but a frigate would be shit as a fleet oiler, for example.


3065a1  No.640892

>>640886

to be fair i'm not much of a naval historian.

I'm more than happy to hear the truth of the matter, though.


17ad73  No.640893

>>640888

checked hitlertrips

Was pic related concept abandoned or was it just journalist fiction? Cause it looks really badass even though a bit too compact


3e2e35  No.640927

File: 2947ebaf014afd3⋯.jpg (50.82 KB, 331x481, 331:481, Tomclancysrainbowsprinkles.jpg)

>>640888

Why didn't they show you FRESH FRUITS instead in IED class?


1b9fd2  No.640938

Hear me out. Take a container ship sized vessel. Put a bunch of ports in the sides. Shove a 105mm gun through each port. Fire broadsides.


7e79c9  No.640961

>>640938

>/k/arrier

>naw fuck that

>we the age of sail again


885227  No.640962

>>640658

>chans

found the redditor


d59057  No.648046

There is already an Emergency Retrofit Plan for civilian vessels like cargo ships…


439bae  No.648047

>>648046

Post it, nigger.


e0e0c3  No.648052

>>640938

>a container ship sized vessel

You could literally have x150 105mm guns on each side in a single row. You could technically have 600 guns on that thing


e0e0c3  No.648054

>>640404

>>640646

You're a fucking retard who doesn't understand his own language. Here, let me show you how you're supposed to format.

"The US military gets around its lack of expeditionary assets and small airlift capacity by prestaging heavy assets around the world on cargo ships. For about 20 years we had container ships full of M1 tanks ready to be sent to any hot zone that needed a heavy brigade.

Converting a container ship into an aircraft carrier isn't hard to do, actually. They're designed to be more stable when topheavy. This is why the mercy class had to have their superstructure deliberately overbuilt, so they wouldn't capsize with all that empty space inside. As for actual armed merchant vessels, it depends on what threats they face and how valuable the cargo they carry. Typically it's easier to just pair them with escorts, but some stuff like point defence systems, torpedo countermeasures, and ASW equipment would very much be useful."


b1aa9c  No.648060

This thread feels like deja vu.


3c5bb4  No.648062

>>648060

Ive just been to this place before


b18416  No.648064

>>648052

>>640961

>>640938

Wouldn't you need to load that thing up with all the EW, AMS, and SAM you could physically fit on it to have a hope of getting within the ~11km range of the target ship? As in to the point where you're spending several times the cost of the ship and its arsenal just to make sure you don't get wrecked. Still, potentially worth it for the look on the other captains face when he sees what the fuck you're trying.


b1aa9c  No.648065

>>648064

It's still going to be cheaper than buying a brand new carrier.

In fact, there's nothing stopping you from protecting your militarized cargo carrier/battleship with frigates/destroyers/escort boats.


ab9a3c  No.648089

>>648065

How hard would it be to convert smaller coastal cargo vessels into poorfag missile destroyers?

What about ferries turned landing /k/raft?


b18416  No.648101

>>648089

Presumably about as hard as it would be to buy the missiles, build a homebrew launch rail and bodge together a 'push the button to fire' tier FCS.


cf96d5  No.648190

File: 14bb8f5e2258a62⋯.jpg (24.58 KB, 561x345, 187:115, MONARC.jpg)

>>648089

Or even better.

Put artillery on ships, like your navy does:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerhaubitze_2000

>The German Navy evaluated a modified system known as MONARC for installation onboard frigates; while the system performed well components were difficult to protect against corrosion. Sweden evaluated a slightly modified version but selected the ARCHER Artillery System instead.


3c5bb4  No.648194

>>648089

Dont forget that old red team/blue team greentext about war gaming done concerning the capabilities of iran.. The general that was given control of the hypothetical iran forces took the entire budget and industrial output of iran and used it to make an armada of nigger rigged speed boats that were to function as piloted torpedos. After being completely unable to keep up with naval poverty fleet zerg rush tactics…. the entire US Fleet was destroyed within hours. . That exercise did such a great job exposing a fatal flaw in our modern naval doctrine that the general who came up with that strategy was shit canned, and every lesson that should have been learned from it was ignored as best as possible.

Fuck militarizing cargo ships… fit 6 gorillion jetskits with 20mm guns and a contact mine on the nose.


a2d465  No.648198

File: 4e57b4c47cfdccf⋯.gif (11.69 KB, 554x668, 277:334, happy_Anglo_merchant.gif)

>>640280

MERCHANT FLEETS WHEN?


cf96d5  No.648200

>>648194

Was this with CIWS or without CIWS?


cf96d5  No.648202

>>648190

>It is capable of a very high rate of fire; in burst mode it can fire three rounds in nine seconds, ten rounds in 56 seconds, and can—depending on barrel heating—fire between 10 and 13 rounds per minute continuously.

I will die happy knowing that my idea would revitalize the idea of battleship.

Can you imagine a small cargo ship armed with at least 02 of these babies? Protected by fighters?

Goddamn.


f6f649  No.648204

>>648194

I've never been entirely clear on the lessons that came out of that wargame, because I've heard alot of contradictory points on the matter. On one hand, it did reveal that a carrier group was vulnerable to large amounts of small missile carrying craft. On the other, the red team general may have pulled some bullshit that exploited the limits of the wargame itself. The excessive continued since ending at that point would have been a massive waste of time and resources.


cf96d5  No.648206

>Red, commanded by retired Marine Corps Lieutenant General Paul K. Van Riper, adopted an asymmetric strategy, in particular, using old methods to evade Blue's sophisticated electronic surveillance network. Van Riper used motorcycle messengers to transmit orders to front-line troops and World-War-II-style light signals to launch airplanes without radio communications.

>Red received an ultimatum from Blue, essentially a surrender document, demanding a response within 24 hours. Thus warned of Blue's approach, Red used a fleet of small boats to determine the position of Blue's fleet by the second day of the exercise. In a preemptive strike, Red launched a massive salvo of cruise missiles that overwhelmed the Blue forces' electronic sensors and destroyed sixteen warships. This included one aircraft carrier, ten cruisers and five of six amphibious ships. An equivalent success in a real conflict would have resulted in the deaths of over 20,000 service personnel. Soon after the cruise missile offensive, another significant portion of Blue's navy was "sunk" by an armada of small Red boats, which carried out both conventional and suicide attacks that capitalized on Blue's inability to detect them as well as expected.

>At this point, the exercise was suspended, Blue's ships were "re-floated", and the rules of engagement were changed; this was later justified by General Peter Pace as follows: "You kill me in the first day and I sit there for the next 13 days doing nothing, or you put me back to life and you get 13 more days' worth of experiment out of me. Which is a better way to do it?"[1] After the reset, both sides were ordered to follow predetermined plans of action.

>After the war game was restarted, its participants were forced to follow a script drafted to ensure a Blue Force victory. Among other rules imposed by this script, Red Force was ordered to turn on their anti-aircraft radar in order for them to be destroyed, and was not allowed to shoot down any of the aircraft bringing Blue Force troops ashore.[2] Van Riper also claimed that exercise officials denied him the opportunity to use his own tactics and ideas against Blue Force, and that they also ordered Red Force not to use certain weapons systems against Blue Force and even ordered the location of Red Force units to be revealed.[3]

Of course, I refuse to comment on this because we have never seen the test itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

Tbh, it sounds like Red team was smarter but was "gaming" the system, while Blue team was really an impatient faggot who got mad he got played.


a35aec  No.648208

>>648194

Millennium Challenge 2002, yes. As I take it, it shows that an analog-tech military force fighting smart, dirty and quiet with a decentralized command chain and a roughly unified plan of action will kick the shit out of a modern force that is- at least at the command level- overly convinced of its own invincibility and victory.

>>648204

I don't know, is it outside the limits of the simulation to use motorcycle couriers in place of knocked out fiber optics and monitorable wireless, light signals in place of air control communication, preventing Blue from knowing what you're doing? Is it outside the limits to shut down active AA radar in order to preserve the equipment against a shock-and-awe attack targeted through electronic warfare? Is it outside the limits to go for broke with a counterbarrage of cruise missiles sinking a carrier, ten cruisers and all but one of six amphibious landing craft? Is it outside the limits of the simulation to followup with E-boat and suicide fireship attacks to start tearing apart the disorganized remains of the Blue Team battlegroup? Is it outside the limits of the simulation to make an actual counterstrategy and play to win?

Because, if so, you agree wholeheartedly with the Blue Team, who went on to prescript the scenario very heavily in a way that ensured an avalanche victory for Blue. As a result, the whole lesson learned from what happens when a modern enemy army goes analog and simply fights completely around modern electric communication is ignored. And, if Iraq or Iran or whatever other Red state might fit the simulation had somehow directly or indirectly emulated the strategy when we went for the kill- unlikely, but a real possibility- we could've been slaughtered. Arab military incompetence and their ultimately playing into the Blue Team favoring scenario that was forced on Van Riper is possibly the only thing preventing the jarheads from getting slaughtered on the beaches or in the holds.

Honestly, I think the entire thing turned into a sham, with a purely political and meta-strategic motive behind refloating Blue Team and doing it over with a script. If it gets into the news in big bold text, "$250 MILLION US OFFENSIVE EXERCISE RESULTS IN NU-VARIAN DISASTER" then people will start to talk. People might take far too close a notice. They- enemies of the US state-military apparatus- might really think about emulating what they learned. So you split that headline up by rerunning the experiment for success under what is technically the same exercise, rather than having to embarassingly do a formal second run, emphasize the success of the new scripted totally-not-second run and the overall 'positive' nature of the 'experiment,' and most importantly make sure the headline isn't running especially long outside specialist circles, IE military magazines or the like. And then you fecklessly go ahead with your poisoned strategic conclusion, and avoid catastrophe through dumb luck.


3e2e35  No.648213

File: 111c63a73effcc8⋯.jpg (461.38 KB, 950x612, 475:306, kill-the-tomato-01-2012.jpg)

>>648194

The MC 2002 challenge was ultimately limited by the kind of software in use at the time of the event and had the absolute fuck exploited out of it by the red team who played the simulation like a video game instead of a role play as Iran. (which is the point of a military exercise, not to "win") Leading to tactics like launching literally every missile in the countries entire inventory all at once based off a single pay phone call and the suicide boat attacks which only succeeded because the AI was not programed to ever target civilian ships are things that would work in a sterile environment with robotic captains that make no mistakes and also are incapable of learning that the conga line of fishing trawlers causally putting into your fleet at 20 knots and exploding one after another are in fact the enemy. Its just clickbait for slavaboos who want to act like "carrier groups are easily sunk by a motorcycle and a payphone using this one weird trick!" and don't want to actually read into the real conditions of the exercise because the truth of the matter more lies with Riper learning how to play gookgraft while he was in worst Korea and using those skills to cause a scene at a public event for personal notoriety.


cf96d5  No.648214

>>648213

>more lies with Riper learning how to play gookgraft while he was in worst Korea and using those skills to cause a scene at a public event for personal notoriety.

Was this true?


f6f649  No.648216

>>648208

I think you've largely misunderstood my perspective. I'm not claiming in the that the results of Ripper's tactics weren't valid. Rather, I've read accounts of the wargame that claim that the tactics Ripper used weren't properly accounted for in the resources available to each player, essentially leading to a borderline "exploit" of the wargame's rules. While it's been years since I've read the article (which is why I didn't make any direct claim against the results), but what I remember being brought up included:

>is it outside the limits of the simulation to use motorcycle couriers in place of knocked out fiber optics and monitor-able wireless

From my understanding, this tactic was assumed to carry the same level of speed and effectiveness as direct wireless comms. Essentially Ripper was issuing commands as if he was using the normal system, but stating that his orders were being ferried by couriers.

>Is it outside the limits to go for broke with a counterbarrage of cruise missiles

Weren't many of those launched from ships that couldn't possible mount the missiles, or could theoretically but only after major conversions?

>a purely political and meta-strategic motive behind refloating Blue Team and doing it over with a script

I was under the impression that it was more a situation where all these assets were on hand for the purpose of the wargame, so having them just sit in timeout would have been a massive waste. Even if you say that most of the landing ships were sunk, it still makes sense to get the landing practice in regardless.

As I've said, I don't disagree with the lessons that came from the first round. Rather, I think people assume that since the games were restarted that the lessons were entirely ignored. I refuse to believe that the military didn't note what had happened, but instead took the lesson then restarted to keep the game going to learn further lessons.


a35aec  No.648219

>>648216

>I'm not claiming in the that the results of Ripper's tactics weren't valid. Rather, I've read accounts of the wargame that claim that the tactics Ripper used weren't properly accounted for in the resources available to each player, essentially leading to a borderline "exploit" of the wargame's rules.

That sounds plausible, but I can't imagine that the US wouldn't have still suffered awful casualties from the tactics in play. Dear, am I become the biased BLUFOR nigger now?

>From my understanding, this tactic was assumed to carry the same level of speed and effectiveness as direct wireless comms. Essentially Ripper was issuing commands as if he was using the normal system, but stating that his orders were being ferried by couriers.

Possible, but not something I saw reading up on the subject a little more. Considering how many orders he actually has to give, would this have changed much on an operational scale simulation under a decentralized 'muh in command but not control' chain? Delays of minutes or hours? Does that matter if the subordinates already have their orders and are acting on them independently?

>Weren't many of those launched from ships that couldn't possible mount the missiles, or could theoretically but only after major conversions?

I did read some accounts/opinions that say as much, and some counteropinions that cast skepticism on how 'major' said conversions would actually be, and considering the coarseness of the simulation, whether that actually matters. Because assuming one goes by the notion of, 'those Cessna and speedboat standins couldn't possibly carry those weapons!'- nevermind the conflicting accounts of exactly what they were standing in as- one has to ask, 'so why is it fine that the US gets projected boondoggle like aircraft lasers and tiltrotor craft functioning perfectly as they would on paper?'

If BLUFOR gets shit that's in development and never actually bears fruit in the real time of the future projection, I think it was to 2007 but with really heavy fudging of what was actually coming online by then, why exactly is it damning that REDFOR, in command of a hypothetical Iranaq nation state (which by one snippet I read was actually modeled after a rogue section of Israel in particular) has some fast attack craft with somewhat fudged tonnage and radar signatures? If they'd been different ships, would this have made any actual difference in the massive radio silent shock attack, and if it did would it have ceased having a highly disproportionate kill/loss ratio? Assuming >>648213 isn't talking out of his bum or being misled by apologists/misinformation when he states the targeting for covert enemy assets was fouled up. I could believe that, but I personally don't believe the audacious 'the navy was teleported offshore! We never would've closed to that distance!' story having a better than 50/50 chance of being an excuse for suicidal overconfidence.


a35aec  No.648220

Continued.

>>648219

>I was under the impression that it was more a situation where all these assets were on hand for the purpose of the wargame, so having them just sit in timeout would have been a massive waste. Even if you say that most of the landing ships were sunk, it still makes sense to get the landing practice in regardless.

Certainly. But it seems to me that the way they handled the reset and the way it's been handled after has been with embarrassment and with intent to mitigate that embarrassment, hoping to have a 'victorious' demonstration and ultimately brush the massive contrary failure under the rug.

I say they should've played out the 'BLUFOR dead in a day' scenario all of the way through, then rebooted it, sheepishly congratulated Riper on the victory, and identified issues with the simulation to run again at least twice over, under the assumption that most of the $250 million was spent on the simulator development and on wanton corruption. Once with Riper pulling his same gambit or a similar one, but with any smulator issues corrected, and once with Riper under roleplaying constrictions against going full analog VC nightmare from the very start. And never being told, 'you're not allowed to missile strike the tiltrotors! Or use the chemical weapons! Because reasons!' A further third time could be run with van Riper going full VC, and the BLUFOR allowed to explicitly counter-counterplan against the analog enemy. But that would be rational, and probably expensive, because costs to do the exercise again would magically inflate to fill up some four and five-star pocketbooks & black project slush funds.

>I refuse to believe that the military didn't note what had happened, but instead took the lesson then restarted to keep the game going to learn further lessons.

I likewise refuse to believe these puffed-up jingoist featherheads and Israeli-abiding toesuckers are incapable of such a wanton display of stupidity. It seems terribly in character with all manner of other real and feigned incompetence in strategy or in procurement.


3e2e35  No.648223

>>648214

It was a joke but it also seriously wouldn't surprise me seeing the cheese he pulled


2eb9b8  No.648235

>>648223

Nowadays shit like that doesn't surprise me anymore.


ccd221  No.648339


d0f38c  No.648377

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>640876

Russians are selling this as a product.


0bbaa7  No.648381

>>648377

They're especially meant for their own new modular patrol ships (Project 22160 and Project 23550) Paket-NK (torpedoes) and Club-NK (cruise and anti-ship), which are pretty fucking radical…


400caf  No.648393

>>648377

Pfft, where is my container compatible self-propelled howitzer?

inb4 just bolt it on the germans did


3e2e35  No.648399

>>648377

Isn't disguising regular troops as non combatants a war crime?


42549e  No.648402

>>648062

Higher on the street

And I know it's my time to go


ab63f7  No.648403

>>648399

Fairly sure that has to do with infantry wearing civilian clothing or enemy uniforms to avoid detection. Q-ships have been a thing for a long damn time, plus I'm fairly certain that as long as you display the correct flag before firing it doesn't count.


f8da82  No.648431

>>648403

The Hague Conventions of 1907 say that every warship has to have clear naval markings in order to be a legal combatant. The intent of the law was obviously to ban Q-ships altogether, but the anglos creatively reinterpreted the law so that flying a naval jack on a ship with civilian markings five seconds before the attack counts as "military markings" (and then blamed Germany when they quite justifiably started treating civilian vessels as enemy combatants, which is exactly why Q-ships were banned in the first place).


7d4df0  No.649399

>>648399

It was during the cold war, but when USSR collapsed the retards in Washington began to think they were God-kings, and nothing could stop them. Which is why George sr, Bill, George jr, Barry and Donald unilaterally meaning one-sided, with no warning or discussion about the pullout pulled America out of about a hundred international agreements. Which permitted Russia to essentially build many Project Pluto-like superweapons they had napkin designs of but never really built before.

>>648393

Funnily enough Finland built an AMOS container.

>>648403

Wearing enemy uniforms is specifically ALLOWED by international law, but until about 2007 hiding military assets as civilian ones was illegal. Also stupid because then your civilians get pasted but…. whatever.


d0e282  No.649518

>>640280

The major powers already figured out by the 17-18th century that merchant vessels converted to fight are not as effective as purpose built ships. If you're talking about cargo vessels to transport military gear, it would work well enough, but it would need quite a bit of protection during wartime.

An or/k/ carrier for or/k/ purposes would be sweet though, you could essentially make a colony ship out of one, and I believe that both half and full /k/ have had several threads in this regard.


000000  No.649523

>>649518

>The major powers already figured out by the 17-18th century that merchant vessels converted to fight are not as effective as purpose built ships.

Duh. But they're cheaper so you can have more of them.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / dempart / flutter / mascot / mewch / tingles / vichan / wg / xivlg ]