3 ms·

Theory of Combined Arms: All weapons are countered by a kind of armor. All armor is countered by a different kind of weapon. The goal is not to build an uncoun

Theory of Combined Arms: All weapons are countered by a kind of armor. All armor is countered by a different kind of weapon. The goal is not to build an uncounterable weapon. The goal is to have a variety of weapons that force contradictory responses. > wouldn't for instance a heat shield coated with a highly reflective material completely neglect its effect? Good job negating the laser. Except the warship also has AI-guided missiles who will lock onto your highly-reflective paint way easier. Combined Arms: by defending yourself against one weapon, you made yourself vulnerable to another. You're not trying to survive against a laser, you're trying to survive against a DDG warship. The DDG has lasers, homing missiles, and guns. Your anti-DDG weapon needs to survive all three of them to be effective.

littlestymaar 5y ago
That's a good point. Even though my remark was mostly about the fact that there seems[1] to be few modern weapon systems for which there exists such an effective armor. [1] at least from an amateur's point of view
- dragontamer 5y ago
  * Guided missiles are countered by stealth. You can't "lock onto" a target if its paint absorbs all forms of RADAR / senses. * HEAT rounds are countered by reactive armor. Using an explosion upon impact means that the opponent can "counter-explode", and negate the physical effects of your explosion. * SABOT / Armor Piercing rounds are countered by range. * Big guns (120mm+) are countered by smaller targets spread out over a larger area. Big guns take a longer time to reload and fire, meaning you can easily get surrounded and killed. * Small guns (12.7mm and smaller) are countered by various forms of armor. Sure, they can be fired extremely rapidly and kill many soft / unarmored targets. But a small-gun will never do anything to a tank or larger warship. * Direct fire (both big and small) are countered by trenches and bunkers. It doesn't matter how big your gun is, it won't go through a dug-in dirt position. * Indirect fire beats trenches. You lob your mortar very high into the air and drop them down on the enemy. -------------- All weapons are countered by a strategy and/or technology. Lasers seem like the "combined arms" counterpart to Guided Missiles. The more your paint absorbs RADAR, the worse it will perform against lasers. Big guns vs Small Guns is your Tank + Soldier combined arms. Small guns lose to tanks. Big guns win vs Tanks. Big Guns lose vs soldiers, small guns win vs Soldiers. All weapons have some defense that beats them. Every defense loses to another weapon.
  - littlestymaar 5y ago
    At some point I imagined you new something about the topic, but given the big list of cliché you've just wrote, it seems that I was wrong. War isn't some kind of rock paper scissors as in RTS games.
    - dragontamer 5y ago
      > War isn't some kind of rock paper scissors as in RTS games. No. The goal is to force the opponent to play rock-paper-scissors, while you don't have to. Every M1 Abrams tank (aka: 120mm platform) is supported by an M2 Bradley (aka: 30mm platform). Do you know why? Because there are things a 30mm gun can do that a 120mm can't. And vice versa. ----------- By sending an M1 Abrams + M2 Bradley at the same time to your opponent, _THEY_ have to play rock paper scissors against your known strategy, depending on if the M1 Abrams reaches them first, or if the M2 Bradley reaches them first. Add on a few 155mm indirect fire Howitzers, a few infantry who know how to use mortars + small arms fire, and now the opponent is playing rock-paper-scissors against so many different possibilities. The Tank Commander/gunner isn't playing rock paper scissors at all. They see the target, then choose the right ammo, and then shoot what's appropriate.
      - littlestymaar 5y ago
        You're really making a fool of yourself. “Amateurs discuss tactics, professionals discuss operations, teenagers discuss gun caliber”, here we are.
        dragontamer 5y ago
        The adage I've usually seen is that Logistics is the king of the battlefield actually. I'm not entirely certain what you want to do or what your point is in this discussion. I thought you wanted to discuss the properties of lasers and how they could be (or could not be) useful in a fight?
        littlestymaar 5y ago

littlestymaar 5y ago

That's a good point. Even though my remark was mostly about the fact that there seems[1] to be few modern weapon systems for which there exists such an effective armor. [1] at least from an amateur's point of view

dragontamer 5y ago
* Guided missiles are countered by stealth. You can't "lock onto" a target if its paint absorbs all forms of RADAR / senses. * HEAT rounds are countered by reactive armor. Using an explosion upon impact means that the opponent can "counter-explode", and negate the physical effects of your explosion. * SABOT / Armor Piercing rounds are countered by range. * Big guns (120mm+) are countered by smaller targets spread out over a larger area. Big guns take a longer time to reload and fire, meaning you can easily get surrounded and killed. * Small guns (12.7mm and smaller) are countered by various forms of armor. Sure, they can be fired extremely rapidly and kill many soft / unarmored targets. But a small-gun will never do anything to a tank or larger warship. * Direct fire (both big and small) are countered by trenches and bunkers. It doesn't matter how big your gun is, it won't go through a dug-in dirt position. * Indirect fire beats trenches. You lob your mortar very high into the air and drop them down on the enemy. -------------- All weapons are countered by a strategy and/or technology. Lasers seem like the "combined arms" counterpart to Guided Missiles. The more your paint absorbs RADAR, the worse it will perform against lasers. Big guns vs Small Guns is your Tank + Soldier combined arms. Small guns lose to tanks. Big guns win vs Tanks. Big Guns lose vs soldiers, small guns win vs Soldiers. All weapons have some defense that beats them. Every defense loses to another weapon.
- littlestymaar 5y ago
  At some point I imagined you new something about the topic, but given the big list of cliché you've just wrote, it seems that I was wrong. War isn't some kind of rock paper scissors as in RTS games.
  - dragontamer 5y ago
    > War isn't some kind of rock paper scissors as in RTS games. No. The goal is to force the opponent to play rock-paper-scissors, while you don't have to. Every M1 Abrams tank (aka: 120mm platform) is supported by an M2 Bradley (aka: 30mm platform). Do you know why? Because there are things a 30mm gun can do that a 120mm can't. And vice versa. ----------- By sending an M1 Abrams + M2 Bradley at the same time to your opponent, _THEY_ have to play rock paper scissors against your known strategy, depending on if the M1 Abrams reaches them first, or if the M2 Bradley reaches them first. Add on a few 155mm indirect fire Howitzers, a few infantry who know how to use mortars + small arms fire, and now the opponent is playing rock-paper-scissors against so many different possibilities. The Tank Commander/gunner isn't playing rock paper scissors at all. They see the target, then choose the right ammo, and then shoot what's appropriate.
    - littlestymaar 5y ago
      You're really making a fool of yourself. “Amateurs discuss tactics, professionals discuss operations, teenagers discuss gun caliber”, here we are.
      - dragontamer 5y ago
        The adage I've usually seen is that Logistics is the king of the battlefield actually. I'm not entirely certain what you want to do or what your point is in this discussion. I thought you wanted to discuss the properties of lasers and how they could be (or could not be) useful in a fight?
        littlestymaar 5y ago