4 ms·

A SAM system is quite vulnerable while being transported or setup. I guess they did not properly stage their SAM units? Set up the first on on your site of the

by pintxo 5y ago

A SAM system is quite vulnerable while being transported or setup. I guess they did not properly stage their SAM units? Set up the first on on your site of the border, then one within the shield of the first, then the third within the shield of the second?

ARandomerDude 5y ago
SAMs also require ground support or they get overrun, captured, and potentially used against your own aircraft. I'm guessing this was a consideration for Ukraine's placement of air defenses. Many things in the military are rock-paper-scissors considerations: - SAMs beat planes. - Planes beat ground forces. - Ground forces beat SAMs. Within the ground forces themselves: - Infantry beats tanks. - Tanks beat artillery. - Artillery beats infantry. Examples of this kind abound.
- KineticLensman 5y ago
  > Many things in the military are rock-paper-scissors considerations Hence the importance of combined arms operations. Sending a column of tanks on its own is just a case of scissors...scissors...scissors. Pre-operational training is also essential. It's too late, in contact, for infantry to figure out how to fight alongside tanks. Lots of armies seem to discover this the hard way in a war, adapt their tactics accordingly, only to forget it in time for the next war. Incidentally, this also explains the western Battlegroup concept. It's the smallest integrated unit with a sensible mix of different arms, usually structured around an infantry or armour battalion depending on the circumstances.
  - hef19898 5y ago
    Honestly, I didn't expect Ukraine to hold out as long as they did, let alone force the Russians to retreat from Kyiv. It does tell one thing so, despite the counter-insurgency warfare of the last decades, Western militaries are the most experienced fighting forces right now. Maybe they'll have some of the problems against advanced AA, like the Ukrainians are deploying, but when it comes to ground combat no other countries are coming even close it seems. That makes also an interesting case study for Taiwan. If, or rather when, Taiwan can deny its air space a Chinese invasion is basically of the table. The Battle of Britain showed that much. And Ukraine showed that current AA, deployed with proper doctrine and part of a well defined and integrated strategy, can deny air space to modern air forces. Personally, I'm surprised how well drones work. All in all Taiwan seems to have decent chance in case China tries something stupid. Being an island definitely helps as well.
    - rjsw 5y ago
      The Battle of Britain isn't a great example, there are plenty of suggestions that the war with Germany would have been over faster if they had been allowed to try an invasion and had their fleet sunk in the Channel.
      - hef19898 5y ago
        I don't like maybes, but that approach (letting the Germans try and sink their fleet) sounds risky. Because the invasion could work. And it's not that the German surface fleet played big role in WW2 anyway. The Battle of Britain showed, so, that Germany called of the invasion once it was clear that air supremacy was not going to be achieved. Which meant that the Royal Navy wouldn't be neutralized to the point of allowing enough of the invasion force to actually cross the channel. The same holds, to an extend, true for China and Taiwan. Without air supremacy China cannot be sure to get enough ground forces across the straight to establish a sustainable beach head. They fail to do that and they lost.
- littlestymaar 5y ago
  Please no. Military is not about rock paper scissors. This meme needs to die. SAM beats planes is probably the most ridiculous one on this list, since most SAM destroyed at war since the 50s where in fact destroyed by airstrikes. SAM destroys planes and planes destroy SAM, that's it. Almost any weapons is able to destroy anything in a favorable engagement. For instance, during this war, we've even seen footage of - at least three Russian tanks destroyed by IFV or APC[1] - an helicopter destroyed by a anti-tank missile[2] In the end, it all depends on how one force engage with another one, and different forces have different strength and weaknesses when it comes to engagement. - Infantry is really good at concealing, and is highly mobile in urban situation. But they have little mobility on their own in a wide battlefield, have low range (especially against enemy infantry), and have limited firepower (suppression fire isn't something infantry can do effectively on a battlefield). - Artillery has excellent range, lot of firepower but will be defeated (and often even captured) by pretty much anything that can come close enough. - Tanks are heavily armored, have decent range and a lot of firepower, but they are kind of hard to hide… [1]: There's two here, https://nitter.net/UAWeapons/status/1512060297607065602#m https://nitter.net/UAWeapons/status/1512060297607065602#m and one here: https://nitter.net/IAPonomarenko/status/1505461949999501312#m https://nitter.net/IAPonomarenko/status/1505461949999501312#... [2]: https://nitter.net/kemal_115/status/1511292835735261192#m https://nitter.net/kemal_115/status/1511292835735261192#m

by pintxo 5y ago

ARandomerDude 5y ago

SAMs also require ground support or they get overrun, captured, and potentially used against your own aircraft. I'm guessing this was a consideration for Ukraine's placement of air defenses. Many things in the military are rock-paper-scissors considerations: - SAMs beat planes. - Planes beat ground forces. - Ground forces beat SAMs. Within the ground forces themselves: - Infantry beats tanks. - Tanks beat artillery. - Artillery beats infantry. Examples of this kind abound.

KineticLensman 5y ago
> Many things in the military are rock-paper-scissors considerations Hence the importance of combined arms operations. Sending a column of tanks on its own is just a case of scissors...scissors...scissors. Pre-operational training is also essential. It's too late, in contact, for infantry to figure out how to fight alongside tanks. Lots of armies seem to discover this the hard way in a war, adapt their tactics accordingly, only to forget it in time for the next war. Incidentally, this also explains the western Battlegroup concept. It's the smallest integrated unit with a sensible mix of different arms, usually structured around an infantry or armour battalion depending on the circumstances.
- hef19898 5y ago
  Honestly, I didn't expect Ukraine to hold out as long as they did, let alone force the Russians to retreat from Kyiv. It does tell one thing so, despite the counter-insurgency warfare of the last decades, Western militaries are the most experienced fighting forces right now. Maybe they'll have some of the problems against advanced AA, like the Ukrainians are deploying, but when it comes to ground combat no other countries are coming even close it seems. That makes also an interesting case study for Taiwan. If, or rather when, Taiwan can deny its air space a Chinese invasion is basically of the table. The Battle of Britain showed that much. And Ukraine showed that current AA, deployed with proper doctrine and part of a well defined and integrated strategy, can deny air space to modern air forces. Personally, I'm surprised how well drones work. All in all Taiwan seems to have decent chance in case China tries something stupid. Being an island definitely helps as well.
  - rjsw 5y ago
    The Battle of Britain isn't a great example, there are plenty of suggestions that the war with Germany would have been over faster if they had been allowed to try an invasion and had their fleet sunk in the Channel.
    - hef19898 5y ago
      I don't like maybes, but that approach (letting the Germans try and sink their fleet) sounds risky. Because the invasion could work. And it's not that the German surface fleet played big role in WW2 anyway. The Battle of Britain showed, so, that Germany called of the invasion once it was clear that air supremacy was not going to be achieved. Which meant that the Royal Navy wouldn't be neutralized to the point of allowing enough of the invasion force to actually cross the channel. The same holds, to an extend, true for China and Taiwan. Without air supremacy China cannot be sure to get enough ground forces across the straight to establish a sustainable beach head. They fail to do that and they lost.
littlestymaar 5y ago
Please no. Military is not about rock paper scissors. This meme needs to die. SAM beats planes is probably the most ridiculous one on this list, since most SAM destroyed at war since the 50s where in fact destroyed by airstrikes. SAM destroys planes and planes destroy SAM, that's it. Almost any weapons is able to destroy anything in a favorable engagement. For instance, during this war, we've even seen footage of - at least three Russian tanks destroyed by IFV or APC[1] - an helicopter destroyed by a anti-tank missile[2] In the end, it all depends on how one force engage with another one, and different forces have different strength and weaknesses when it comes to engagement. - Infantry is really good at concealing, and is highly mobile in urban situation. But they have little mobility on their own in a wide battlefield, have low range (especially against enemy infantry), and have limited firepower (suppression fire isn't something infantry can do effectively on a battlefield). - Artillery has excellent range, lot of firepower but will be defeated (and often even captured) by pretty much anything that can come close enough. - Tanks are heavily armored, have decent range and a lot of firepower, but they are kind of hard to hide… [1]: There's two here, https://nitter.net/UAWeapons/status/1512060297607065602#m https://nitter.net/UAWeapons/status/1512060297607065602#m and one here: https://nitter.net/IAPonomarenko/status/1505461949999501312#m https://nitter.net/IAPonomarenko/status/1505461949999501312#... [2]: https://nitter.net/kemal_115/status/1511292835735261192#m https://nitter.net/kemal_115/status/1511292835735261192#m