3 ms·

I thought tanks and infantry were already basically done against equiv-tech opponents. They are not sufficiently mobile to dodge the various smart weaponry we h

I thought tanks and infantry were already basically done against equiv-tech opponents. They are not sufficiently mobile to dodge the various smart weaponry we have available today.

choeger 6y ago
Just look at the Syrian civil war or the Russian invasion of the Ukraine. In both cases, Russia deployed (various quantities of) conventional forces and overwhelmed their (more or less) equally equipped opponents with tanks, vehicles, and infantry by employing better organization, tactical and strategical mobility and, to some degree, air superiority. In both cases, live satellite images at the tactical level would have made such an offensive practically impossible.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
  Hrm. I don't know enough about the exact makeup of those offenses, but it seems to me that Russia is at least a tier above the other two countries you mentioned in terms of military capability. Especially, it seems like Russia has much more ability to project power via long range guided weapons, and that Russia would be able to establish air superiority over the other two countries if they did try to take the fight to the sky.
giantg2 6y ago
As those offesive technologies advanced, so too have the countermeasures. Another part is that you have equal-weight matchups occurring at each level. Your expensive and highly capable platforms will be busy targeting the adversarial platforms that pose the most threat to them (usually expensive systems as well), leaving less time/resources to commit to the lower weight targets. For example, you're not going to get as much air support from either side if the planes are dealing with each other. Of course that is highly generalized as the whole system works as an interdependent mesh.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
  Maybe? I feel like most of the countries at the top present tech levels could not really absorb the kinds of infantry and mechanized losses that would ensue if they tried to have an actual ground war. Guided rocket artillery, cruise missiles, airstrikes, etc. seem capable of killing infantry in numbers that would not be politically acceptable. This is to say nothing of the losses that could be inflicted with strategic weaponry (either nuclear or non-nuclear) in a total war. This is part of why I don't expect any future direct wars between world powers.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    "Guided rocket artillery, cruise missiles, airstrikes, etc. seem capable of killing infantry in numbers that would not be politically acceptable." Even infantry to infantry conflicts against a peer-like adversary would result in unacceptable losses for today's society. "This is part of why I don't expect any future direct wars between world powers." I somewhat agree with that. I think it could be possible in a scenario similar to that video game (Solid Snake?) where countries fight each other in highly mechanized/autonomous fashion - limited loss of life, but high economic costs until one collapses. But yeah, probably more likely to be a cyber war or cold war scenario. Technically we are in a loose proxy war with Russia based on what's going on in Syria.

I thought tanks and infantry were already basically done against equiv-tech opponents. They are not sufficiently mobile to dodge the various smart weaponry we have available today.

choeger 6y ago

Just look at the Syrian civil war or the Russian invasion of the Ukraine. In both cases, Russia deployed (various quantities of) conventional forces and overwhelmed their (more or less) equally equipped opponents with tanks, vehicles, and infantry by employing better organization, tactical and strategical mobility and, to some degree, air superiority. In both cases, live satellite images at the tactical level would have made such an offensive practically impossible.

asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
Hrm. I don't know enough about the exact makeup of those offenses, but it seems to me that Russia is at least a tier above the other two countries you mentioned in terms of military capability. Especially, it seems like Russia has much more ability to project power via long range guided weapons, and that Russia would be able to establish air superiority over the other two countries if they did try to take the fight to the sky.

giantg2 6y ago

As those offesive technologies advanced, so too have the countermeasures. Another part is that you have equal-weight matchups occurring at each level. Your expensive and highly capable platforms will be busy targeting the adversarial platforms that pose the most threat to them (usually expensive systems as well), leaving less time/resources to commit to the lower weight targets. For example, you're not going to get as much air support from either side if the planes are dealing with each other. Of course that is highly generalized as the whole system works as an interdependent mesh.

asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
Maybe? I feel like most of the countries at the top present tech levels could not really absorb the kinds of infantry and mechanized losses that would ensue if they tried to have an actual ground war. Guided rocket artillery, cruise missiles, airstrikes, etc. seem capable of killing infantry in numbers that would not be politically acceptable. This is to say nothing of the losses that could be inflicted with strategic weaponry (either nuclear or non-nuclear) in a total war. This is part of why I don't expect any future direct wars between world powers.
- giantg2 6y ago
  "Guided rocket artillery, cruise missiles, airstrikes, etc. seem capable of killing infantry in numbers that would not be politically acceptable." Even infantry to infantry conflicts against a peer-like adversary would result in unacceptable losses for today's society. "This is part of why I don't expect any future direct wars between world powers." I somewhat agree with that. I think it could be possible in a scenario similar to that video game (Solid Snake?) where countries fight each other in highly mechanized/autonomous fashion - limited loss of life, but high economic costs until one collapses. But yeah, probably more likely to be a cyber war or cold war scenario. Technically we are in a loose proxy war with Russia based on what's going on in Syria.