>>90915649
Bio enhancement suits and surgeries

>>90915649
The main feature would be using off map abilities to kill your opponent more than using on map units.

>Drones from friendly units in area providing support
>UAV and satellite uplinks constantly blaring everyone's location
>Increase use of over the horizon weapons being the safest way to engage rather than participate in grueling close combat.

>>90915925
>use of over the horizon weapons
Wouldn't it make more sense to just decrease the scale of the map so it includes these units?
What else would you put on the map?

>both sides have scattered infantry hiding in trenches and ruins several kilometers away from each other
>game starts with a pre-game where both sides have swarms of cheap drones, ranging from recon to suicide drones
>whatever drones exit off the enemy’s table edge go into the next phase
>there are two follow sub games, first player A’s drones spend turns spotting enemy units to be bombed
>then player B takes his turn
>at the end, when drones are expended, causalities are totaled up and added to the “PR score”
>after several years of playing games whichever side has the lower PR score wins

File: Future Combat System 2.jpg (106 KB, 800x595)

106 KB JPG

>>90915925
>>90916008
>What else would you put on the map?
I mean: which kind of units would you imagine to be the main feature on the map, if the artillery and support is abstracted away as player abilities?
Combat between infantry in urban warfare?
Vehicles supported by infantry?

Giant robots sword fighting.

Is making everything a drone really going to be the future of combat?

File: macross missile massacre1.gif (1.4 MB, 320x240)

1.4 MB GIF

>>90915649
Missiles, missiles errywhere. Tiny pocket missiles, huge fuckoff missiles, medium tank-killing missiles, space missiles, inside-the-forest micromissiles, drone missiles, cheap missiles, expensive hypersonic missiles. Missiles.

>>90916089
All the footage I've recently seen shows it's either infantry doing infantry stuff or drones dropping explosives on poor, unsuspecting targets. Also rockets, missiles and artillery, that shit never goes out of style apparently.

>>90915649
>Let's assume a world war taking place in a generation or two from now, where legacy cold war equipments is fully phased out
No. Already wrong. Its iterative, most countries don't throw out the old weapons every few years like iphone. That's an american problem.

>>90916282
An american quality. We'll be using 9th level orbital warfare while shithole countries get around to copying the 'predator' drones.

File: game of drones.jpg (65 KB, 600x840)

65 KB JPG

>>90915649
Cybersecurity and military dominance will become increasingly indistinguishable. Someone will build a standing army of drones, and then someone else will use them to win a decisive battle, and then after that shit gets really weird and decentralized.
Radicalizing suicidal kids on the internet and turning them into soldiers is a normal part of the game now. At this time it sort of favors the underdogs but it won't be long before the ruling powers hone it down into a science (they're pretty good at it already). This is basically the end of rightful populist rebellion, it's a dated concept, but people will continue to believe in that concept and it will be used against them.
The U.S. as we know it will fall in the next 50 years, but the Pentagon will survive and become Hydra.

>>90915649
Same as cold war but better tech and comunication, so something like now but better tech.
>Tanks are deeead
Tanks are one of more important pieces of hardware and are going nowhere, fact that you need dedicated anti tank weapon to destroy them since WW1 and they are still in game proves it, besides APS are thing and are getting into service.
>Fighter planes are on the way ouuut
No they are not, multirole/strike fighters they are still best way for aerial superiority and air support muh drones can be jammed or hacked human piloted plane can't.
Get what you get on modern battlefield but make it happen faster and more precise.

>>90915649
>Ok, well then what could a wargame made to represent believable future wars look like?
Swarms of cheap, 3D-printed drones acting like low and slow missiles that cannot be targeted because they are coated in black stealth paint.

>>90916146
Yes. They are cheaper than missiles while carrying the same payload, they are more controllable than any other fighting vehicle, and they can be used more stealthily than anything barring a human or animal. Drones will make tanks obsolete, as we are seeing in Gaza and Ukraine where they can just drop a hand grenade on a tank and disable it for basically $250. Drones will make torpedoes obsolete by being more deadly to warships while not requiring specialized engines and can be maneuvered unlike torpedoes to dodge defensive fire. Drones will make airplanes obsolete by basically fulfilling all their functions but allow pilots to control them from the other side of the planet through satellite. Drones will even replace bullets in a few years thanks to pending legislation in California that will force ammunition manufacturers to implement "smart" bullet technology which will require bullets to home in on the extremities of human targets rather than the center of mass.

>>90916146
>>90916181
Killing an army with drones is unambiguously better than killing an army with another army. Humans killing humans will still be a big part of the game, guns are still a big deal, being bulletproof is still a big deal, but we live in a world where you can cast fireball on someone's head from the other side of the planet and it costs less than training a soldier. So things are getting weird and will continue to get weird.

>>90916574
Rockets were supposed to make warhsips obsolete, warships just started carrying rockets.
Drones won't replace everything because drone countermeasures will get better, war will stay more or less the same.

>>90916594
>war will stay more or less the same.
That is less true for this weapon than it was for any previous weapon. It's really just a question of how much time our species has left and of how far the game will be allowed to progress, the last war might look a lot like today's wars, or might be one of today's wars.

>>90916621
To be fair most weapon systems that are used in wars from last 5 years were also used during ww2, just got better and more precise and drones took role of attack planes because cheap so good trade if they succed nothing of worth lost if get fucked, but only because neither side can achive air superiority and go ham with planes.
Future war will be just your normal mechanised warfare but with more "smart weapons" only question is if scale get larger and we get ww2 scale because all this tech became easier and chepaer to produce, or it can be just another big power blasting locals of some third world shithole.
If drones destroying tank became problem then antidrone countermesures for tanks will be implemented.

To be fair, when a drone blows up a tank, you have to give some credit to the guys who invented bombs and rockets. Similarly, if alien tech should revolutionize warfare such that only vibroblades can pierce the robot samurai armor of the future, then the drones will just be flying swords. Drones don't replace weapons, drones replace soldiers.

>>90916146
>Is making everything a drone really going to be the future of combat?
No, there are actually huge constraints placed on them in environments with heavy electronic interference. In the Russo-Ukraine war jamming has effectively made large semi-autonomous UAVs inoperable, and smaller weapon delivery drones need to have their operators close to the front to work, where they're hunted by artillery and other drone operators.

>>90916228
>it's either infantry doing infantry stuff or drones dropping explosives on poor, unsuspecting targets.
>>90916536
>>90916574
Drones makes warfare seem goofy/boring because we don't yet have widespread countermeasures for them, but stuff I guess stuff like jammers, point defence and defensive drones are going to be as standard to any engagement as wearing a bullet-proof vest is to infantry.
I could make space for a little bit less one-dimensionality to the conflicts. At least on the tabletop.

File: rockets.gif (1.51 MB, 480x240)

1.51 MB GIF

>>90915649
These are important principles in future warfare:

>Any Sensor, Any Shooter
>When anyone finds an enemy, its location is reported to a centralized database and the enemy's position is provided to whoever is in range to strike it. A drone can spot a tank, then a shell fired from a howitzer lands on it minutes later.

>HOOTL command structure
>Human Out Of The Loop: At no point does a human person decide to strike a known target. The moment an enemy is identified, a computer assigns it to a shooter for an immediate strike.

>Mass sensor masking
>Camouflage and strategic deception no longer work; and, if you get spotted, you die. To survive, you must blind the enemy with a giant coordinated campaign of all-spectrum electronic warfare and take every step possible to deny their sensors or flood them with useless information.

I imagine a futuristic wargame would play more like a combination of Battleship and Guess Who than a regular contemporary wargame.

>>90917129
You can always counterbattery strike enemy automated arty, besides militart deception died with radar based recon satelites.
Also doubt about HOOTL implementation, military wouldn't trust computer too much otside smart minefields, but it's minefiled anyway so anything goes get exploded, you still would have operator drinking his coffe and computer asking him to press Enter to confirm attack.
Future Warfare would just have big electronic component

>>90915649
>Ok, well then what could a wargame made to represent believable future wars look like?

Depends entirely on the scale and locality. Lets take an already existing game like Force on Force or No End in Sight for some of the much nearer future options that keeps things on a comprehensible fireteam level combat where things are at best about a platoon level skirmish. This is the format that works best for miniatures games because honestly, shit gets too much to manage otherwise with ultramodern warfare for wargamers. Not even joking, ultramodern warfare with all the tech looks more sci-fi than most sci-fi wargames.

These games are very similar but approach things slightly differently, and I must admit I find the latter a lot easier to interface with even though it's a far more amateur production. Either way both take the approach that much of what's happening needs to be kept very abstract, with a focus on suppression fire, the quality of the soldiers involved and their morale more than the specifics of the hardware they're carrying. Most weaponry is rated into its type and given fairly broad ratings. Ranges unless very specifically limited by minimums and maximums, are line of sight. Gameplay focus is on achieving objectives.

As for high technology, much of what's out there is effectively differentiating between what information the players have and their troops have. One of the most important things drones do isn't attacking; it's let people see without risking themselves, it lets them spot from angles that people don't naturally account for when trying to hide from other people (directly above). But on tabletop, well players already do that. So there's more than just 'line of sight' mechanics for detecting enemy units going on. These games also can have remote operated weapons and indirect attacks just fine. So at that level it's all easy enough still with games that exist already.

Going further future though you have to start ponder what even the form of conflict that you're trying to model is. What is fighting what, over what objective, at what scale.

It becomes a lot easier the narrower in focus you go. The less you have to try and work out what to model in overlapping fields, the better. Maybe you could try and make a game of missile attack and defence systems, balancing ECM/ECCM and layers of different kinds of active defences in some kind of competitive tower defence game representing a battle of attrition taking place over hours, days or months even.

Or you could give up and play OGRE I guess.

File: mad max tank.jpg (91 KB, 700x400)

91 KB JPG

>>90916282
>most countries don't throw out the old weapons every few years like iphone.
I'm aware. That's why I wrote "a generation or two from now". That means between 30 to 60 years into the future. By then, your average cold-war equipment is going to get well over 50 years old. There is a point where maintenance will start feeling like the job for a museum curator.
Troops will also be less than thrilled about being sent to the front in outdated tanks that are expected to last mere minutes in an engagement, just to deplete the stocks.
But, yeah, I would expect legacy vehicles to still be a significant feature of the game, if only for the always fun "chrome vs rust" scenario.

>>90917643
It's not necessarily the front the troops will get sent to, it's rear-guard. A partisan with a rifle and a molotov is still fairly defenseless against a modernised tank from the 60s or so.

>>90916146
Nah, drones depend on near space not being heavily militarized. Once anybody goes in too hard in on drones, armies will start blasting sattelites and then we're back to the slightly refined V1 that are so popular with the Russians right now.

Probably with a side of signal balloons and zeppelins to quickly get theather-level wireless working.

>>90917643
New tanks and equipment depends on your enemy, you still have Leo 2 and Abrams in service despite being outdated because USSR fell apart and there was no need for new weapon systems because enemy had no new weapon systems.
M60, Leo 1 chieftan all were created because NATO saw T-55 and it could dab on any western tank of this time so they created new better tanks, T-62 was stopgap and bascially T-55 with bigger gun, but then Soviets pushed T-64 and T-72 tanks designed to rip M60 and Chieftans to shreds, composite armour, powerfull main gun, so west created M1 Abrams and Leo2, then when Soviets were mid upgrading T-72 and T-80 and designing new tanks USSR fell apart and cold war tanks are still good because your enemy is still using cold wor era tanks. For new tanks to exist Russia or China need to pump some new tanks that aren't just cold war tanks with modernised systems. There was short time when armies kinda made move towards new tanks after Russians showed T-14 Armata but they have something like 20 prototypes and no vision of future mass production, so design of new tanks on west is also stopping. Same thing with planes, you got late cold war projects finished but not much beyond that because Russia is still flying on Su-27 modernisations. There is pish towards F-35 because Russia and China started production of gen 5 fighter, F-22 was discontinued because it was only gen 5 fighter for years and US was fighting sandniggers who's airforce consisted of kidnapped boeings and airlauched Ahmeds after 200kg bomb explodion, gen 5 fighters was waste of money, even obsolete shit like A-10 was considered waste and planned to be replaced with super tucano that could do same job of removing kebab but cheaper.

>>90917129
>Mass sensor masking
A good defence in theory but this is theoretically becoming more difficult, not less. As sensors advance in precision, power and ubiquitous nature they are capable of adapting to junk data at an exponential rate; whereas it would rapidly become far more intensive to fool increasingly intelligent sensor systems. It might, ironically, become a total slaughterfest where materiel kills each other with practically no difficulty and warfare becomes even more tied to industry.

>>90915649
No war, just strings of assassinations from multiple groups.

>>90917770
Currently in ukraine wire operated field telephones from 60's were taken from storage and used in combat by both sides because jamming was so strong that radio just can't work there or it got quickly located and arty striked, drones can't fly so they use obsolete piece of shit because it still works and can;t be traced.
Besides drone strike footage is cherry picked from some not important places, but no one talk about drone loses only that you can strap grenade to civilian drone and drop it on russkies, but in places where real fighting takes places drones are either mowed down from skies or can't even enter airspace because of jamming.

>>90917643
>Waaagh

>>90917880
Reminds me of that one maneuver in which the US fleet was sunk by message runners on dirt bikes and speedboat spam.

>>90917922
the fucking ghost of millennium challenge will never die. actually read up on that exercise and you'll see that was all just bullshit and 'nuh-uh' from a guy throwing a tantrum over his career.

>>90917799
As long as the horizon exists you can counter a superior sensor network by just hanging further back. As long as your sensors and ability to fight at long ranges are not significantly worse than those of your enemy you will then fight each other with a tolerable attrition rate from greater distance. It is no different than infantry giving up mass charges into melee after machine guns made standing within few hundred meters/yards of the enemy impossible.

>>90915649
>Ok, well then what could a wargame made to represent believable future wars look like?

There's only one unit and it's AI-guided nanodrone swarm. The players do nothing but randomly move the swarms around. Whoever wins, humans lose. Total extinction follows from adopting AI warfare. The end, no moral.

>>90915649
First of all, you are too enthusiastic about burying tanks and jets. Yeah, we wouldn’t get the blitzkriegs theorised during cold war, but they aren’t a complete gunner
Infantry would probably be mostly the same.
AFVs would play mostly support role. Tank still can provide shitton of firepower and take plenty of punishment, but you need to be really careful
Planes should come in two flavours: offmap missile launches and high speed low heigh hit and run
Drone would be the focus. Grenade drop, suicide drones, artillery spotters, gun drones, anti-drone drones. They should make more then half the list
Game would probably work better on a large board compared to amount of units present
Also fortification have made a comeback. So expect lots of trench clearing
>drone cage armata is supporting wagner advance against holed up US marines with FCAS doing a low alt pass, all while hordes of switchblades and Shaheds rain death

>>90918526
I don't know why people think because tank can be destroyed cheap(like we haven't seen that during WW2 with at rifles, at guns and panzerfausts) or planes can be shoot down(just like ww2) they somehow became obsolete and new toy sudennly became only thing you need on battlefield.
Are people really that retarded?
Tanks, jets, infantry will just evolve to work with drones and have drone countermeasures. Iirc in 50 Khruschev made statesment that rockets will make warships obsolete, instead warship just started carry rockets. Smart weapon only means that said system is better at doing it's job but this goes both ways because countermeasures also became better.

>>90917880
>but no one talk about drone loses
Because they literally don't matter. Let me explain it in layman terms, so you can wrap your head around it.
Training a grunt to use antitank weapons takes about a month and 100k. Do you have any fucking ideas how many toy drones lobbing nads you can get for that money? So who fucking cares if 99 of them are going to fail, if that 100th is going to take an enemy tank and it's going to cost in total less, than getting a single grunt into semi-competence with the Javelin.
Wars are won by making your shit cheap, not fancy. If it works, and it's cheap, it's going to get adopted, period. Same reason why ammo is now in plastic bags and reinforced cardboard boxes: it weights less, and thus you can transport more. Who cares if it's not as resilient as wooden boxes with metal containers, if you can transport thrice as many for the same price and 1.3 more times due to sheer compactness of cardboard.

t. former army logistician

>>90919225
Great but if instead of doing lucky nade drop on some unsuspecting vatnik in middle of nowhere you want some real damage you need proffesional military drone that won't be jammed by everything, and here baykatar cost 5mil $ for one, even switchblade proffesional military loitering munition is more times useless than not. While improvised drones are cheap sollution they also don't work at all when enemy turn on jamming, not to mention you as operator can be spotted, while proffesional kamikaze drones are better they also cost bank and require training.

>>90919493
Drone jamming is overrated, even jamming regular commercial drones isn't always effective
Plus latest lancets have semi-autonomous mode, where operator marks the target and drone gets to it by itself, making it unjammable

>>90919225
The guy carrying them to the front cares, 'logistician.' FPVs work in a static front like Russia/Ukraine because 1) nobody has enough modern jammers to matter but 2) everybody roughly knows where the enemy is and can take their sweet time waiting on supplies instead of being forced into a fight with weapons that fail 80% of the time.

In 'peer' level wars commercial and amatuer drones fall out of the sky to jamming. America did it against ISIS and Isreal is doing it against Hamas.

Semi-autonomous drones could help, but then again, laser air defence is being bought up by the advanced armies right now too.

>>90919710
We saw vids from Palestine where Hamas dropped grenades onto Israeli forces
>laser defense
Assuming you can get them to work, they cna still be dealt with. Drop decoys, wrap grenades in tinfoil, air-burst glitter bomb, etc.

>>90919617
>Plus latest lancets have semi-autonomous mode, where operator marks the target and drone gets to it by itself, making it unjammable
To mark target you must first see it, you will get jammed before you have chance to see it.

>>90917944
he used the day 1 patch advantage

>>90919878
Again, jamming is highly overrated, and jamming something moving relatively fast is hard
Plus, if it was such a large problem I'd put boosters on it to get into optical targeting zone faster at the last flight stage

>>90915649
platoon sized game using mostly land vehicles and drones for observation/loitering munitions
better tech/finances could probably get you a crop plane (obs/loitering munitions) or helicopters and explosives


look at metal gear 4 small squads with biomechanical support

>>90915649
ABC Warriors are the future.

>>90915649
The only way to know whether a futuristic game is realistic is to know the future. Anything else is just appealing to autism

>>90915649
If you want realistic future combat play Warhammer 40,000.

>>90919710
And the front is static because long range antitank fire renders it so.

>>90920102
Nah, it was this way during WW2 too, both sides just lack numbers to break stalemate and neither side can achive air superiority due to lack of planes and high concentration of air defence.

>>90920102
Neither side had the numbers or skill to do a conventional breakthrough early on. Both have good AA/limited air forces so they can't do it that way either. So the delay gives them time to dig in, plant massive numbers of mines, and snipe at each other.

If drones and ATGMs were abolished it would still look the same. Ukraine isn't a 'future' war it's what a mutual loss in a 1980s war looks like.

>>90919837
>We saw vids from Palestine where Hamas dropped grenades onto Israeli forces
Yes, from the initial raid and the few days. Once the Israelis pulled their heads out of their butts and got their EW going the Hamas drones disappeared.

>>90920248
To be fair it's just like smaller scale battle of WW2.
Instead of AT cannons ATGM and instead of AA guns SAM but it's still the same.

>>90915649
>>Tanks are deeead
This has been claimed since the 1920s and still isn’t true.
>>Fighter planes are on the way ouuut
I don’t think anyone actually claims this

The main thing I might have a near future wargame based on drones and human casualties. For example
>Drones
Generally low quality units, can be jammed which disables or kills the unit
>Autonomous Drones
Cannot be jammed (no remote controller) but have rigid rules of engagement priority (think old 40k robots) which can be changed by a nearby human handler forgoing other actions for a turn
>Manned Equipment
Either infantry or vehicles with some or all human crews, despite being the best units which can’t be jammed and have no restrictions on engagement they are expensive and costly to lose
Victory points besides securing objectives will be based on costs of lost materiel and manpower with the latter more heavily weighted.

Also would be cool to have limited info to make scouting more useful, for example having blank bases with the unit (or lacktherof) marked underneath, with the units being moved like normal but their specific type only being revealed when identified. As for scale, maybe platoon/company level 15mm.

>>90916282
>That's an american problem.
The Abrams is older now than the Sherman was when the Abrams was introduced.

File: file.png (3.23 MB, 1582x850)

3.23 MB PNG

>>90915649

>>90915665
Biopunk is tight as hell, I wish more settings would use it. Genetic modification always seems to get used as a villains-only boss weapon, but when it comes to supersoldiers, modern settings almost always stick to technology instead of just building their guys better to start.

>>90920248
>Neither side had the numbers or skill to do a conventional breakthrough early on
I'm pretty sure both sides have greater numbers and skill than just about any other fighting force on Earth. There's no reason to believe that the Americans, British, Poles, or Germans would do better.

>>90917227
>doubt about HOOTL
It's one of things "they would never do" that inevitably happens.
Benefits of HOOTL:
>cheaper (one less pilot)
>faster reaction time
>can function without a signal
Drawbacks of HOOTL
>people who don't matter say it's spooky

>>90916327
>An american quality. We'll be using 9th level orbital warfare while shithole countries get around to copying the 'predator' drones.
>doing anything better than anyone
Anon it's Anno Floydi 4, all your toys got outdone by an islamic flaying lawnmover, you think your de-industrialized ass still impresses anyone?

>>90916574
>Drones will even replace bullets in a few years thanks to pending legislation in California that will force ammunition manufacturers to implement "smart" bullet technology which will require bullets to home in on the extremities of human targets rather than the center of mass.
lmao is this the power of nogunz

The difference between a drone and a missile is academic at best. Same with torpedoes.

>>90921333
It's all fun and games until it's you/your kids getting misted by insurgent hacked/stolen/"donated" autonomous weapons.
Then it's
>WAHH SACTIONS
WAHHH INTERNATINAL REGULATIONS
WAAAH WAHH

>realistic
It all depends on the effectiveness of one system relative to others.

Something like Dune's personal shields could be realistic: where a defense filtering a common type of attack (ballistics) makes melee weapons relevant again in turn.
Or nukes; a weapon so devastating it's never used.

You could have nanoplauges each side constantly releases and counters.
Gamma beams which cook schools of drone-subs but haven't been miniaturized yet below artillery scale.
A space environment where there's no means to hide once in range of enemy detection so each side puts out flotillas of disposable sensors they are willing to lose and everything's decided by who finds who first.

and so forth.

It's not about a weapon or defense in-and-of itself but everything that surrounds it
How cheap is it to mass produce?
How acceptable within and without your polity to deploy it?
Can you reach where the enemy lives?
How soon are new counters deployed?

And so forth. The nature of warfare has changed drastically throughout history as one set of technologies has forced a new meta on the world. For example castles creating strong-points to fall back to generated greater stability in a region. Or Hitler's mechanization leading to a highly mobile form of war. Or the Greek emphasis on making the entire male population war-ready. Or China's simple method of mass farming for more people for armies which won by brute numbers.

It's like Red Queen Theory: every military system occupies a niche in an ecosystem of war doctrine which's constantly evolving. As one philosophy's able to successfully impose its' methodology on the battlefield others are displaced. Emerging relationships may even be overlooked, lost completely, despite their effectiveness as war planners, generals, politicians, financiers, manufacturers, and developers miss the potential.

>>90922350
I'd say there are truths of warfare which stand the test of time and some which are very modern.
Ancient Truths: The Greek observation that every city is constantly in a state of war against every other city and vying to expand its' power in a bid for total domination.
Contemporary Novelties: The deployment of highly trained, equipped, and supported special forces units leads to endless brinkmanship with potential for rapid escalation. Assassinations with nano particles, the release of biological weapons, cyberattacks to attack nuclear plants, oil refineries, etc. and so forth.

In this regard games like Infinity's minis skirmish, Shadowruns magical mercenary corporate wetworks teams, and Cyberpunk's criminal gangs as muscle for bankers are all closest to the contemporary truth.

Ancient Truth: a dramatically aberrant worldview is necessary to grant a crop of potential combatants sufficient fanaticism to find the moral approval to commit war. See Shaolin Monastaries, The Old Man of the Mountain, Freemasons, the Thule Society, Odinic werewolf warrior cults, and other mysteries.
Fictional / tg examples of these include the Batlarian Jihad and 40k's Space Marines.

>>90922469
>i am stupid
and ignorant.

Watch and learn
https://youtube.com/watch?v=N02SK9yd60s

>>90922350
One thing
>Or Hitler's mechanization leading to a highly mobile form of war
Wermacht mobilisation is myth of nazi propaganda, it was mostly composed of infantry divisions mechanised(panzer and mechanised infantry) was only 17% during barbarossa and logistic was based upon horses I would even risk saying that Wermacht was least motorized of major powers in Europe, not to mention that germans strategy wasn't new, they did the same tyhing they did for 200 years, encircle enemy and destroy them, they tried to do it doing ww1 but got no room to manouver. Also blitzkrieg wasn't real, it's term given by foregin press german military never used it, also up to invasion of USSR in 1941 there was no CAS, ground forces and airforce had no means of communication and coordination untill then.
Just some correcting some WW2 myths spawned by Goebbels propaganda or post war "we were heroes and we would win if not this mad man hitler who we totally didn't liked back then" ex german generals memoirs. Also Guderian wasn't some big reformer or genius who haad to fight for panzers, he was one of many officers who jerked off to idea of tank units and wasn't even first who wrote book about panzers in germany.

>>90922647
>no the Wermacht wasn't the best Army in WW2!
Set martial world records which still haven't been beat. Cry more.

>>90922632
>nanoparticles as a means of assassination?
yes

>>90922719
>Set martial world records which still haven't been beat. Cry more.
That would be French militatry history.
Also Germany despite attacking weaker states like Poland, Belgium and France, caughting USSR with it's pants down during mobilisation and modernisation still somehow lost the war.

>>90922809
>caughting

>>90922809
>somehow lost the war.
The British and American preferred a Soviet-dominated Central Europe to a German-dominated Central Europe and put their thumb on the scale to achieve that end. For America in a particular, this was a calculated choice - not something where they had their hand forced like the British.

>>90920349
>Exactly, to get a complete defense you'd have to be putting out ECM so hard people's fillings will start ringing.
Ok? I've jammed a whole street with a lab supply and an old ass magnetron. With a jury rigged semi portable radar you can easily jam a perimeter

>>90922990
>For America in a particular, this was a calculated choice - not something where they had their hand forced like the British.
>Hitler literally declared war on them
>not forced

>>90923209
>Hitler literally declared war on them
So has North Korea. The fuck are they going to do from an ocean away. And this was preceded by bankrolling and arming the British. America picked sides well before formal hostilities. They thought about and ultimately preferred Not The Germans, unsurprising given the direction of the American aid during the Spanish Civil War. Roosevelt could have just ignored moustache man, ignored the drunkard and debtor that lost Britain it's empire, and come out fine - possibly better than historically.

It's not controversial to say the Roosevelt and his administration preferred communism to fascism and Russian domination over Central Europe to German domination over Central Europe.

>>90922990
>>90923209
>>90923418
American neutrality was always a lie, the allies couldn't have won on their own, yet Hitler couldn't win as long as we were supplying the allies. It could have been worse and dragged on longer if Japan hadn't hit us.

>>90924498
>yet Hitler couldn't win as long as we were supplying the allies
Lie.
Hitler had no chance of invading not to mention taking Britan, without Lend Lease they just wouldn't be able to go in offence, but Royal Navy was constantly dunking on Kriegsmarine.
As for USSR they stopped Barbarossa without Lend Lease despite being outnumbered, relocating 50% of their industry, USSR would win against Reich even without help, it would just take like 2 years longer +5 milion more dead civilians and 2 more milions dead soldiers, in reality Germany was finished when they failed at Stalingrad due to lack of oil.

>>90916975
We hear as much about drone jamming as we hear about ukrainian losses. Doesn't mean that they ain't real and not happening.

>>90920349
>Exactly, to get a complete defense you'd have to be putting out ECM so hard people's fillings will start ringing.
Just suit up for ECM then. Same way you'd suit up for gas attacks. Really, these seemingly even fulfill the same function as gas did in WW1.

>>90926828
People forget that there is no super weapons that will make you win, there is only arms race, enemy attack village, village builds wall, enemy builds siege engines, defender builds better, thicker and taller wall, gatehouse is now strongest part of wall, enemy build bigger siege engines, wall gets even thicker and better, enemy gets cannons wall gets shorter but way thicker, starforts happen, cannons get's better use more earthworks beofre your fortifications, artillery is king dig trenches and build big underground defence lines with super thick bunkers etc.
WW 1 we got gas, gasmask happened, then gas got better and went trough masks, better masks were developed, then gas that work with just skin contact was used and now you have to have entire suit, WW1 planes happened they were shoot down by mg, later planes fly faster, higher and are from metal, you have autocannons and large flak guns to shoot them, jet planes? I cast radar guided missle. Wow WW1 tanks piece of shit but works, you can still use grenades against it, tanks got better but now we have oversized riffles and light at cannons, well tanks too strong for riffles we got at grenade lauchers and bigger cannons, tanks even better? ATGM everywhere, composite that armour negates heat, reactive armour? tandem warheads, bigger warheads, javellin and kornet will destroy any modern tank, APS shooting down ATGM, something that will counter APS in 5-10 years from now.
Drones are new toys in big conflict, previously there were used to blast schools and hospitals in middle east so not much thought was put to fight against them, now you have 2 armies in somehwat peer conflict both spamming drones and creating countermeasures as they fight in like 5 years there will be entire counter drone warfare units in every army.

>>90927278
Makes you wonder when they'll start experimenting wtih EMP shells to blip out a specific region. Like mix'em in with other mortar shells to degenerate coms and observation drones.

>>90927431
Livens projector-style EMP grenades seems like something that's a lot harder to target than trucks accompanied by generator trucks.

File: 1699298494827036.png (149 KB, 289x288)

149 KB PNG

>>90915649
tanks arent fased out, thats the retards speeking
its fore sure that any soviet tank are gone, no way russia will ever come back with T90 or anything like that
tank on tank might no longer be priority
attaking a tank on the front might become the way to go as priority of armor might be the roof, all armored vehicle will have limited anti air capacity
jamming will be so sever that no one will be able to send radio wave for more then a meter since countering drones will be priority
infentry still existe cause its the only real way to keep or capture territory
lazers genova ban will be ignored cause UN is a sugestion
maybe solid penetrator ATGM for infantry cause HEAT is starting to become pretty shit
attack helicopter might become obselete even tho its unlikely
fighter are here to stay that is for sure
trenches are more eastetic then anything else
the navie will change the most

>>90927814
>maybe solid penetrator ATGM for infantry cause HEAT is starting to become pretty shit
>modern tandem ATGM like Javelin and Kornet dab on all tanks used on Ukraine no matter if they are ex soviet tanks or western ones, heat is here to stay.

>>90927902
its russian
they are shit
im talking of western tanks
soviet tank will desapear from combat in 20 years
hard kill, better roof armor, and conter to droped amunition will be the death of javelin
javelin will die when 8th gen come

>>90927431
You could probably combine the ideas, use a shell delivery method to drop jamming mines out in the field. Then if a drone is detected, the mines go off and fry the area it's in, ideally before it gets close enough for your own shit to be affected.

>>90927823
>As the Chinese Spy Balloon scare showed us, not even the United States is great at differentiating these small craft from other more common pings.
This seems like one of the cases, where machine learning would actually be genuinely be useful. Just because humans can't tell the difference doesn't mean that the pattern won't emerge if you crunch enough data after all.

>>90928167
I'm not talking about russian tanks, western tanks like Challengers 2 and Leopards 2 are blown by atgm, not even top attack, just normal Kornets.
Hardkills get implemented, then atgm get counter aps countermeasures, tank aa hmg will get automated controll against drones(russians are alredy trying to do it), so drones will evolve past that.
Also Soviet tanks won't disapear from combat because there is a lot of them, they are cheap and there is a lot of poor countries, fucking T-55 tank that was made shortly after WW2 is still in active service including at least 1 NATO member using it as it's main tank.
>better roof armor
>death of javelin
Current MBT with piss poor roof armor weight 50-70t, Javelin have more than 700mm of RHA penetration, you would need to somehow make roof armor(biggest surface on a tank as thick as frontal armor and you can't thin frontal armor because if you do apfsds from outdated shit like T-55 or M60 will penetrate it no problem
If anything roof will stay the same, just tank tactics will evolve.
>javelin will die when 8th gen come
If you consider we are still in third generation Javelin will die way sooner, it's weapon system form 1996, it will get replaced at some point, most likely when Russia or China finally decide to put hard kill aps on their tanks, then another missle system designed to coutner aps will be developed.

>>90929059
>Thing is the Drones you're worried about are going to be Aerial, thus not much a Landmine can do to counter them.
Not all mines are landmines. The mine just needs a sensor package and a direction EMP/jammer. Drone flies overhead and gets shotgunned by a pod on the ground. I only say deliver it by shell because you don't want to waste time and men trying to plant them out where they could be seen by the enemy.

>>90919710
>A country with barely any equipment stops cold an invasion by self-decared "2nd armed force on the planet"
>HURRR DOESN'T COUNT DURRR!
So your name is Ivan Petrovich or Peter Ivanovich?

>>90921212
That's the best part, it just opens it up for more conflict for the story. Maybe they're hidden away from the world, more weapon than man, and have to escape back to their old lives, or maybe they develop some sort of superiority complex and start shit that needs to be handled by some government bounty hunters. All sorts of room to work around details.

>>90928409
probably something like a man-portable BONUS style round, firing the jet out of hard kill range

>>90929283
Or even just a shrapnel mine like those Bulgarian anti-helecopter mines. Seed a scaled down version of those fucking everywhere and literally shotgun any drone that flies too close.

>>90929362
>A country with barely any equipment
It was second strongest republic of USSR it had a lot of military equipment it was world's 3rd nuclear power before giving up nukes for not being economically fucked, it had 200 S300 state of the art SAM platfors that can shoot down both planes and balistic missles and it was in state of war since 2014, if ukrainian army was in same state as it was in 2014 ruskies would conquered them in less than month. Military failure is mostly on Russia and it's corruption, but let's not act like like Ukraine is some defenceless small country.

>>90928167
You cannot effectively armor a roof against top attack missiles while retaining useful mobility lmao, and it's easier to build a better ATGM than a better top armor package.

>>90929407
Could be like that top attack self guiding munition, or classic atgm but aps can't detect it or some clever solution like having precursor missle triggering aps so real missle go trough simlar to how tandem missle deteats ERA, hell last option is alredy in use by Russia in form of RPG-30 single use AT grenade laucher.

>>90929576
And both countries have national IQs in the high 90s like the US. There's no reason to believe the US military would do much better than the Ukrainians on defense. They would do better than Russia on offense, however, because the in Serbia and Iraq, the US had fewer qualms about smashing power stations, and other civilian infrastructure which would help them advance further than the Russians.

>>90929660
USA would do better only because it have strongest airforce in world, so while Ukraine is holding because it have copious amount of high quality AA systems but it's airforce is almost non existent, Russia wasn't very invested in quality training of pilots, so we have one side that can only shoot planes down and other that can't break AA defence. US no matter if as attacker or defender would just bomb shit out of theri opponent. As attacker US would just bomb ukr for 2 months straight before first US soldier would cross border.
Also fact that Russia wanted to annex teritory and "play nice" with civilians so they ignored power grid at the beginning, US would target it day one.

>>90929660
Firstly, the Russians have spent most of their time trying and failing to destroy the power grid in Ukraine. Second, even if they had succeeded, that barely effects the military at all, militaries have zero problems using generators and batteries.
Third, Russia's military is run like a prison gang instead of a military, they've got Colonels doing jobs that should be handled by NCOs and NCOs doing jobs that should be handled by privates (and privates mostly handling the privates of officers before being thrown into unsupported infantry charges against fortified positions). Russia is not even remotely comparable to any Western military. They're not even on the level of the better African militaries, and those are run by retarded strongmen.

>>90923418
>possibly better than historically.
lol, lmao. fuck off if you dont realize we got the economic, political, and technological prizes of the millennia in WW2. The only better deal is Stalin having a sudden heart attack in March 1945

>>90927902
>on all tanks used on Ukraine
A Slavjank Tank is not a good example of all tank-kind. #NotAllTanks

>>90931459
Why not indeed. We've been putting jammers on troops and vehicles for decades already. But if you only do that, then you have to wait for the enemy drone to get way too close for comfort unless a major breakthrough in detection is made. Drones are difficult to spot from a distance, so if you put your sensors closer to where the drones come from, you solve that problem.

All these jammer bros make me laugh when I just fly my cheap ass drone over the interference and have it drop its grenades 5 times a night

I got into FPV drone racing via a simulator. Bought a 120$ remote and it's super fun.
I could imagine fun drone combat games on a table too. Jamming. maneuvers, weapon loadouts, gadgets, recon... there's lots of potential here.

>>90915649
Long live artillery and long range strike

>>90916917
Soldiers are the one thing drones aren't good at replacing yet. None of them can hold ground because of their crap battery lives, which is why ground drones are so rare.

But if you're the kind of person who likes a single man making a big difference on the battlefield, drones lend toward that. War is moving away from bulky machines and back to the individual man making or breaking a battle.

File: Morseapparat-2.jpg (61 KB, 800x575)

61 KB JPG

>>90916574
*laughs in morse code from 19th century transmitter*

File: 1599326328945.jpg (108 KB, 880x487)

108 KB JPG

Can we sum some stuff up and see if we can put something together?
Here's what seems to be the rough consensus so far:
>>90919922
>Platoon sized game/15mm
>>90916385
>Tanks are still around, with updated defence
>>90920291
>There is a distinction between drones, autonomous drones and manned equipments.
>Drones have different limits.
>Manned equipments are less susceptible to jamming, but losing men are costly in terms of victory points.

Ok, here is what I would propose from there:
>Units have an "active defence" value, on top of the usual Attack/Armour/Movement
>Two types of attacks are available: dumb ammo and smart ammo.
>Smart ammo regroup kamikaze drone and loitering munition. They can't miss, but are countered by active defence.
>Different factors can help the active defence bonus: jamming, space superiority, how long the munition need to travel before contact to target...
>Semi-autonomous drones/bots are a thing. They can react, however their depend on an operator for initiative. Their initiative roll depends on how close they are from their operator (- jamming, space superiority etc...)
>As mentioned: human infantry and manned vehicles have the benefit of not being limited by jamming and initiative, but losing them have a huge impact on victory points
>There is a "Strategic Spectrum phase". Basically, before the game, each player have a number of strategic points that they can invest for different assets: space superiority, cyber warfare, logistics, reconnaissance.
>They pick these assets in secret and then compare them at the beginning of the game.
>Some assets are direct improvements, but some others depends on what your opponent picked. For example: Let's say Player One picked "Space warfare 1, Cyber warfare 1, Logistics 1" while Player Two picked "Space warfare 2, Logistics 1". Then Player Two would have the Space superiority, Player one would benefit from Cyberspace superiority and both would have additional troops.

File: 1587385285523.jpg (118 KB, 1054x655)

118 KB JPG

>>90936258
>Vehicles can carry better equipment (heavy weapons, better active defence that can overlap and defend nearby units...)
>Infantry act in squads, can make a much better use of cover and have a much better stealth
>Fighter jets and such could be abstracted away as part of the Strategic Spectrum phase. (something along the lines of "You can call in X amount of air attack if you benefit from air superiority")
No one mentioned VTOL yet. I would assume they would be like vehicles but flying, but I'm open to hearing otherwise.
Some people mentioned bio-enhanced infantry. I would fucking love that, but I'm worried it may stretch the suspension of disbelief a little bit too far. Perhaps there could be different "eras" in game, with different army lists. Eras further in the future could include biotech, cybernetics and even robotic infantry.
Is there a game we could start with, as a base for the system?

>>90936397
>No one mentioned VTOL yet
0 diference from hellicopter

File: 1583127336376.jpg (279 KB, 2048x1365)

279 KB JPG

>>90936258
>>90936397
What do you guys think of this premise, for the fluff:
>It's 2070 or so
>World powers fight proxy wars for dwindling ressources
>Key battlegrounds include newly accessible regions due to global warming, such as Greenland and Antarctica
>Africa is another key area
>African factions relying solely on traditional infantry and manned vehicles, they are the "low tech" faction. However their demographics means they lose much less victory points when they lose manpowers.
I'm not sure which other factions to pick. North America-Western Europe vs Russia-China would feel a little bit too "ripped from the headlines".
North America-UK-India vs Europe-MENA-Russia vs Asia could be funnier, a little callback to 1984.
Perhaps not having multinational factions at all could be interesting.
Any ideas of how to shake things up a bit, to distance this setting from the present day? The United Islamic Nations of Western Europe? Post-reconquesta Greater Mexico? United Korea? Independent Siberia? Chinese civil war?

>>90936258
I would add that arty is king but require line of sight from manned unit or drone to call and radios of said unit can't be jammed.
Also stuff like kamikaze drones swarm, that fuck shit up cuz swarm of flying munition but can be easly jammed.
Also hacking enemy drones mid air or detecting drone operators and calling arty/air/balistic strike.
And rules for field phones working on wire, when you defend some place "at all cost" you can turn jamming up to 11 so nothing works no drones, no radio nothing, but defenders just pulled wire all over the place and just use old fashioned field telephones cuz they can't be jammed, hacked or listened by enemy EW.

>>90936603
That's a mouse tank if I've ever seen one.

>>90936530
>helicopter
Well, no one mentioned helicopter either. But does "like a vehicle except flying" sounds like a good way to handle them?

>>90939138
I mean
>it shoot stuff have anti infantry and anti vehicle capabilities
>it flyes
>when it's high aa batteries handle it
>when low MANPADS handle it
>when hover even ATGM handle it
They are pretty much ground vehicles that fly.
Only real diference with helli and vtol is vtol being faster and capable of flying higher turning it into normal aircraft. This is also why most armies don't bother with VTOL and one that do use them as carrier based airplanes mainly to support marines.

File: 800px-Aircraft_VJ101C_RH.jpg (65 KB, 800x358)

65 KB JPG

>>90939257
The Germans were rather fond of the idea of a supersonic aircraft that could set out from and touch down for service just about anyhwere, until they mysteriously no longer cared.

>>90939493
Well they figured it out that it's cheaper to have airport and turn highways into emergency runway that to construct and maintain supersonic vtol aircraft, hell first supersonic vtol was created in soviet union in 1989 as prototype only ss vtol that entered service is F-35B. VTOL offer very limited benefits when compared to drawbacks, this is also why only ever introduced was shitty soviet subsonic marine fighter that couldd take off and land from helicopter pad, poor remedy for soviet lack of carriers, harrier that is just cas for marines and F-35B special version of future workhorse of US armed forces that is designed to replace harrier.
So VTOL sucks outside of niche when you don't have real aircraft carrier, and yes Marines are so special that they have their own landing ships that work as helicopter carriers so they can work without support of proper aircraft carrier.

>>90939493
>>90941750
Oh wait I fucked up, German prototype was supersonic, so soviets weren't first. Still germans most likely saw costs of maintanance and decided to scrap project.
As compensation fun fact, soviet prototype after cancelation of project(vtol naval fighter is low priority when your entire country collapses) was bought by Lockhed and it's vtol technology is used in F-35.

>>90941750
>and turn highways into emergency runway
Yeah na yeah. Going as fast as your car can from the coast to the Alps is basically the German equivalent of gun ownership. Them sectioning off highways for take-offs and landings would trigger a civil war for sure.

>>90944498
If you need to use highway as runway you are alredy in state of war so they can suck dick.
Besides most countries have or at least had highways as emergency runways, Germany still have them.

>>90944498
The key word you’re missing is “emergency.” As in “shit has hit the fan so hard the fan exploded and the shit is hitting every other fan in the room.”

Dumbass.

>>90936632
What's the best practice for integrating artillery in a miniature wargame?
I remember, in Horizon War you can keep them off the table and they can attack stuff one of your unit has line of sight of.
Perhaps having something like a delay in response could be appropriate, this way it could be an interesting game mechanism to force enemies out if they find a position that's a bit too advantageous.
>>90944637
Did you try it? Is it any good?

>>90945138
Arty depends on scale of the game, if you have big distances arty on table if you don't then off battlefield as for time it of course depend on duration of turn but unless you have very fast turns it should be instant, currently it's matter of 3-5 minutes, you call for strike, copmuter does math, you have gps shell that guide itself now it only need to get to target, from wargame perspective this would be in same turn and in future it will only be faster, big thing would also be counterbattery fire but it depends on arty implementation.

>>90919225
>Wars are won by making your shit cheap, not fancy.
Pierre, you're dead. Back into the catacombs

>>90929583
you can only transport so much
and no its not just conventional armor i was writhing about
HEAT will only be able to throught so much, something will replace HEAT, man portable anti tank weapons will exist for sure but they might no longer be rocket lunchers

>>90915649
Ballistic missiles shot to tstrategically valuable points in third world countries.

File: carcano-group.jpg (919 KB, 2000x1033)

919 KB JPG

>>90919225
The Carcano is the only good rifle of WW1 and WW2, according to logisticans.

>>90948767
The work in progress HEAT replacement attempt is magnetohydrodynamicly formed penetrator warheads, DARPA call theirs MAHEM.
>https://www.darpa.mil/program/magneto-hydrodynamic-explosive-munition

>>90949239
It's kinda funny how blowing up the components of a coil gun to induce conductivity in order to accelerate a penentrator is what this is about.

>>90927382
EMP isn't real negro, you need a nuclear blast worth of energy to generate a useful EMP.

File: Feels_good_mang..png (1019 KB, 1255x941)

1019 KB PNG

>>90915649
If you're going to assume a traditional style wargame, so boots on the ground and a mixture of infantry and vehicles fighting over strategic points, then you'll have to also assume that in the future, countermeasures will be made to make drone and extreme-range warfare undesirable. Another good assumption is that the real estate and materials being fought over are too valuable to just destroy, such as rare materials being used for building or complicated machinery being important. Finally, make an assumption of a jump in technology that allows for increased capabilities of individual soldiers or weaponry - Something like effectively unlimited battery life for powered armors letting single men carry around anti-tank weaponry, metallurgic advancements that make explosions or small arms fire less effective, etc. You can also sprinkle in the idea of war treaties being made that disallow the heaviest or most extreme weapons, allowing war to play out much like a game in exchange for both sides agreeing not to just nuke everything out of existence.

One example of doing that is in Battletech, where it's blatantly admitted that 'mechs aren't the ideal military vehicle but there's an enormous amount of money already sunk into the concept, treaties were signed that made asymmetrical warfare like nuclear weapons and orbital bombardments subject to unlimited censure, and then good old propaganda making a scenario where it makes sense to throw a half-dozen battlemechs against each other. The point isn't that it's actually the best form of warfare, but it's the way that's best understood and works best for the parties involved. Later on they even have forces that break these rules and completely fuck up vast forces, but doing so completely shotguns their relationship and their chances of taking real power.

>>90915649
Alright guys, it's been fifteen minutes, roll spot check for another suicide drone

>>90949009
Damm it looks like mosin nagant at home

>>90949626
It would be correct to state that the nugget is the Carcano at home.

>>90948767
So far only way to protect against heat is to not be hit by it by either making it miss or shoot it down before it hit you, some ATGMs currently in service can penetrate more than 1m of solid steel, 1 fucking meter, 1000 mm of fucking steel.

Soldiers have cope cages attached to their packs and helmets.

>>90915649
I'm kinda tempted to try and make one after I'm finished with Agartha 2e. God knows I have more than enough 6-10mm models. Would probably try to make Mechs into a thing, although they wouldn't play like in any mecha show.
Just to see how far you could push milsim autism into a fun game...

>>90949657
yeah but what is the point of penetration if you cant even hit the damn thing
new type armor and layout makes them less and less effective as well
sure there is also a limit to this but at some point HEAT will be more close to the size of car wheel, good luck carring on your back a 250lbs 400mm ATGM

>>90949699
Just call the mechs "armoured power exoskeleton" and no one will bat an eye.
I've already wrote my premises there >>90936258 I'm game if you like the concept and want to work on it four-handed.

what could possibly make extreme range combat undesirable in the future? because most ttrpg combat is not on that scale

>>90951288
Dune shields are good counter to all ranged combat, forcing you into melee.
If by extreme ranges you mean balistic missles or long range artillery then widespread laser point defence systems that can shoot down missles and airships in air could do it, then it's all up to boots on the ground cuz require line of sight and if they can shoot you you can also shoot them.

>>90927814
>no way russia will ever come back with T90 or anything like that
what do you think they're doing right now?

>>90951288
>>90951480
It would be interesting to dive into a setting where advanced high-concept space navies are being replaced by relativistic rocks.

>>90952449
That's retarded, if you can drive a rock that hard, you can do that to an actual ship with actual maneuverability.

>>90949009
Honestly, the Carcano is one of the better bolt action rifles of WW2. It's easy to make, handy in the carbine configurations, has a nice round in the 6.5.

What really let the Italian infantry platoon down as a shitty machine gun, compared to the Bren, MG-34, Type 96, etc.

>>90916379
In his own time, Augustus was not called Imperator. This did not make him any less of an Emperor

I wonder who will become the leaders of a truly Imperial America

>>90954090
I wonder if America would break before it became an Empire. Unlike in Rome, the power is not centralized around the military and land ownership, but raw finances and economics. The military being viewed as separate and (on paper) subservient to the civil government makes Caesar style power grabs very hard, to say nothing of how destructive war is now compared to then and how fragile things like the power grid and economy are by comparison.

To say nothing of the lack of patriotism felt in young Americans. In order to restructure America into an autocracy, there'd need to be a lot of war, and a charismatic leader the likes of which America hasn't produced in over a century. We're simply too fractitious and greedy a people.

>>90954090
>I wonder who will become the leaders of a truly Imperial America
An AI, probably.

>>90954090
>I wonder who will become the leaders of a truly Imperial America
The US has never not been an Empire.

>>90951288
>>90951480
>>90952449
why contain it?
if you find it a problem have air support be limited due to proliferation of cheap AA options
artillery can be brought to bear and zeroed on you quickly due to satellites
>all this means is that the games are 3-4 turns because shit pops off and everyone runs off before they got popped by artillery
>longer games in satellite 'dead zones' etc
easy, in game narrative with a impact that can be modified

>>90954452
Elon.X v1.0

>>90951288
You still have them, it's called artillery.
Why wouldn't they only use artillery in the future? Presumably for the same reasons they still need infantry and tanks in Ukraine now.
I would guess:
>You can't hit a target at long range, with dumb rounds, if it moves.
>To halt the progression of enemy troops or vehicles, you need to intercept them with troops of your own.
>Smart rounds are either expensive, susceptible to jamming, have a chance to be countered by area/point defence or close-in weapon systems
On top of that >>90954483
>satellite 'dead zones' etc
in future total war, orbital superiority may be contested, too. And unlike air combat, where whoever have the advantage rules the sky, it's much harder to put something in space than to destroy it. In an all-out gloves-off war between equivalent powers, it's perfectly plausible that both side ends up mutually annihilating their orbital surveillance capabilities.
Meaning you need either air superiority or boots on the ground to be able to locate your targets.

>>90915649
>tanks are dead

We're off to an awful start already if you believe what musk pulls out of his ass with all of his 0 years of combined arms training.

Expendable drones and information warfare though are definitely the chief ways in which warfare with a peer adversary would be much different than past wars. When precision artillery can smash a location from miles away, combat turns into a very high stakes game of hide and seek.

Unmanned (or similarly expendable, if your faction isn't as concerned with losing flesh and blood) high speed scout and attack vehicles probe enemy lines and territory to locate high value assets and screen for enemy scouts. Decoys, feints, ECM, ECCM and the next generation of observation and subterfuge technologies make every open field and highway a chessboard for a massive strategic information game.

In the cities or with civilian populations, things get messier with surveillance and intel gathering developed to fight increasingly sophisticated and effective insurgency. Troops will have to breach hostile environments with traps and unmanned combatants prepared to ambush them, presuming entire buildings aren't rigged like massive anti-personnel mines. Think Windows 98 Minesweeper mixed with Jin-Roh.

This is, of course, assuming that things develop the way they're currently going. Any paradigm shift in warfare or new objectives in warfighting may necessitate a complete rethinking of the use of weapons. Disregarding the 'no mecha' fags for a moment, the important innovation in Gundam that is the excuse for the Mobile Suit being developed is the discovery of the Minovsky particle, a byproduct of their fusion drives that completely trashes all conventional radar and communications, meaning fights occur at knife-fighting ranges where visual contact can be maintained. If a similar unexpected innovation occurs in reality, the future of warfare may bear no resemblance to warfighting today.

>>90915649
>muh tanks are dead
>muh aviation is dead
>muh drones
Menwhile Ukraine has proven that WW2 tactics are still king when the sides have technological parity.

>>90956080
>Menwhile Ukraine has proven that WW2 tactics are still king when the sides have technological parity.
Mixed with cold war motorized infantry tactics but yes, artillery just got better at job, infantry is shootier and have ride most of the time, ATGM replaced At cannons, SAM replaced Flak but tanks and planes got better and drones they are bascially cheap recon/ground assault planes, technology is better but purpose and function is the same as during ww2, the more things change the more they stay the same.

>>90915649
press button, electric infrastructure of your enemy goes down, he gets deposed.

>>90955894
Musk is the world's leading expert on manufacturing, not the expert on armoured warfare.... yet. This could change any interview now.

>>90956080
>Ukraine
>when the sides have technological parity
choose one

>>90958768
There's more american materiel in ukraine right now than soviet, which is fucking incredible considering they were the second largest soviet military.

>>90960084
*NATO material
americans have contributed a lot with bradleys and other stuff there is still a lot of european artillery systems and such

>>90956080
There's a lot of AA and both sides don't have more advanced fighters, why ukraine was asking for F15s. MANPADs and what not what been pretty effective against helicopters, but they've still been using them enough for plenty of footage of them being blown up to appear.
Tanks are still strong and effective otherwise people wouldn't be using them. The ability to bring men and ordinance to bear in a armoured vehicle is still incredibly valuable.
Tanks get blown up a lot in open conflict just look at ww2 armour losses. Ordinance is so strong now in particular that if you get shot you usually aren't going to want to get hit by a second missile/rocket/etc. That being said the ability of the crew to survive is monumental and there's a reason the Bradley has been highly praised in ukraine, because even when the vehicle is taken out of action the occupants usually survive.

Drones are cheap-ish depending on the drone and usage, and they are effective but you only have so many bombs before a resupply and not everyone can be on a controller. You still need boots on the ground to take a trench even after shelling.

War is very interesting and complex.

File: 1689060122231724.jpg (805 KB, 1659x959)

805 KB JPG

>>90917227
>Also doubt about HOOTL implementation, military wouldn't trust computer too much otside smart minefields
they're the ones pioneering these concepts, anon

>>90916385
>you need dedicated anti tank weapon to destroy them since WW1 and they are still in game
Last real war was like 20 years ago, using tanks designed 40 years ago. And what happened was
1. They were scared by spooky (explody) briefcases
2. The enemy had no enemy tanks, so they were doing expensive overkill (cannon on dispersed guerilla infantry lmao)
3. Latest war in ukraine proves killing tanks is mega cost effective and you can use drones and silly rockets to do so

>>90963645
>Latest war in ukraine proves killing tanks is mega cost effective and you can use drones and silly rockets to do so
And during second world war you could do it by using grenades, oversized riffles, at cannons or funny pipes with heat. Tanks were blown up by ATGM's since 60 it was even worse because it was done by missles that were carried in briefcases.
Tank is dead is almost 100 years meme and now Ukraine is begging for even more tanks.
>tanks is mega cost effective
Same can be said about infantry, airplanes and warships, all you need to do is to hit your hevy trained and equipped infantrymen with riffle bullet(under 1$) or fragmentation, shot multimilion $ plane from sky using cheap ass AA rocket or destroy super expensive warship with rocket from coast, or torpedo from submarine(oh wait it was also done in WW1 and 2). Destroying stuff is always cheap and cost effective and weapon systems were always destroyed the moment they were send to combat.

>>90963645
To be fair much of the ineffective nature of Russian tanks appears to be based on the fact their capabilities are nowhere near as close to the Wests as we presumed. While experimental and prototype technologies continued to be developed and showcased for propaganda, they are either ineffective in the field or completely absent.

If Nega-NATO magically appeared, rising from the ocean like REDFOR lumeria we might be seeing less dismissal of tanks from talking heads. The problem remains as it has for literally a century: Tanks are at their most effective in combined arms scenarios where they provide infantry breakthrough capability and infantry provides them screening and security.

>>90915649
Metal Gear Solid 4 kinda figured it out, just ignore the excessive fantastical stuff

Drones, bio engines, drones, drones, drones, DRONES, high intel, drones, smart guns and FF systems, drones, DronEs, PMC's, drones, drones, meme warfare to artificially force or dismantle military hotspots, drones, drones drones drones drones, redundancy, drones, false-falseflags, self-capitalizing battle groups, drones, DRONES

>>90915649
I'm confused, why place the generator set on front of the unit? Isn't that asking please disable my costly support drone unit?

>>90965601
The turret is facing backwards it looks like.

>>90965351
>To be fair much of the ineffective nature of Russian tanks appears to be based on the fact their capabilities are nowhere near as close to the Wests as we presumed.
No it's not that, they are not bad tanks, they are just used poorly. Russian tactics were terrible no proper recon, no infantry support, fuck even no logistics hundreds were lost because they ran out of fuel, tank despite popular belief need a lot of support and lone tank is useless, it just get hit by atgm or rpg and that's it, and "muh turret throwing autoloader", it's not autoloader or russian tanks thing, it's 99% of tanks thing, you don't see this often with western tanks because western tanks don't fight much, and when they do you have USAF bombing enemy army into no existence before tank can even fight, Leopard 2 first combat action was during syrian civil war it got hit by some outdated ex soviet atgm, result turret 10m away from tank and hull torn to shreds, not long ago in ukraine challenger 2 got hit by atgm and boom it's gone, only western tank that won't throw turret is Abrams because all munition is stored in turret. So it's not that russian tanks are bad, it's that russia forget lession it learned from previous wars and need to learn them anew each war they fight.

>>90963719
>now Ukraine is begging for even more tanks.
Russia is begging for more tanks
Because theirs keep blowing up

File: Anti_Tank_Gun_Fight_Fury_(...).gif (428 KB, 320x180)

428 KB GIF

>>90965351
>infantry provides them screening and security.
Shouldn't it be the other way around

File: Millions must die.png (836 KB, 768x768)

836 KB PNG

>>90965491
>self-capitalizing battle groups

File: 64567743.jpg (144 KB, 768x573)

144 KB JPG

>>90915649
this is as believable as it gets

File: maxresdefault (65).jpg (136 KB, 1280x720)

136 KB JPG

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFs6LG0TEyU

>>90966171
It is possible that the tank can both be misused and not as exceptional as warthunder players and youtubers have been lead to believe.

Don't get me wrong, of all possible adversaries only Russia and China come close to matching NATO assets, but I think the gap is wider than I think we presumed. Only an idiot would go and say "oh, it's JUST a T-90", cause it'll still shoot your shit just as dead.

Lets also remember both that warfighting isn't a spreadsheet and stupid shit happens all the time (stupid shit usually having the name of 'top attack') and, ballpark, any offensive technology needs armor and protection an order of magnitude more advanced to fully thwart it.

>>90966187
When I say screening and security, I mean infantry can be watching for anti-tank assets and prevent the tank (which is relatively unaware compared to ground troops) from being caught unaware.

>>90965491
>PMC's
remember when everyone thought pmcs were the future kek

>>90966758
wagner is literally in ukraine right now

>>90966171

The main issue was that they went against their own doctrine. Their doctrine calls for a massive air assault before sending the army in, thus destroying vulnerable assets before they can be mobilized and dispersed. This wasn't done properly having excepted an early capitulation. And for all talk of NATO, most NATO members couldn't do even a fraction of what Russia has achieved so far.

>>90966835
iraq

>>90963645

Tanks have always been expendable. If you look at any battle during WW2 you will see that they died in droves with stuff like 650 tanks loses per day. If anything, they are more invulnerable now than they have ever been. The only reason why you haven't seen major loses in modern warfare is because everyone has been running low intensity wars. Everyone has been calling the death of the tank since 1919. Yom Kippur was the last time the tank was put in doubt.

>>90966852

The US' coalition gathered over a million men. the basics of force multipliers: Saddam's troops were catastrophically outmatched, so the US's coalition could be expected to take minimal losses (the greater the enemy's advantage, the fewer their losses). Thus, while the U.N. killed some 30k Iraqi troops they only lost 392 people.

>>90966863
Western block countries that aren't the US would take between three to five years of ramping up production and storage before they have enough ammunition to bomb a Third World nation's government into submission.
We saw that during the campaing of re-introducing slavery in Lybia.

>>90966852
>30 years ago
>99% of job was done by superpower
>against third world shithole
>that had large but obsolete army
How Iraq was outmached wasn't even funny, they had new stuff on paper, but their export T-72 were alredy used for 10 years agains Iran's western tanks(with very good effect), used ammo that was withdraw from soviet service in 70 and their brand new Mig-29 had only outdated short range IR R-60 instead of new soviet R-73 or long range radar guided R-27. Then Gulf War was made by propaganda even bigger success than it was and during later investigations it was revealed that Patriot's 100% interception rate was more close to 0% and instead of 800 T-72 only 150 were destroyed.

Unless you are talking about 2004 invasion then, country under international embargos without industry and same army equipment that was left after 91 invasion but without proper maintanace and spare parts.
>>90966879
And before first coalition soldier crossed Iraq border Iraq forces were under aerial bombardment for over month.

>>90972407
>and during later investigations it was revealed that Patriot's 100% interception rate was more close to 0%
I heard a vet operator of that war joke that the Patriot really put the "miss" back into the missile system.

Then again, consecutive upgrades apparently made it a lot better. Gotta remember that we couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with dumb missile even decades after the war, but nowadays they aren't any worse than autocannons.

>>90966835
>The main issue was that they went against their own doctrine.
True, not only they din't started with proper air support but also their doctrine while you have frontline units that breaks enemy lines behind them should advance worse quality units just to secure breakthrough. Russian assault units broke ukrainian lines, outrun their supplies lines and were left with no fuel and ammo while ukr spec forces just ambushed undefended supply columns.
This entire operation was against russian military doctrine, thing that army is trained operate on.

>California that will force ammunition manufacturers to implement "smart" bullet technology which will require bullets to home in on the extremities of human targets rather than the center of mass
What the fuck did I just read lmao

>>90966406
I think we're going to see tanks move towards potentially a UGV direction, or a Leopard 1 because armoring against modern standoff weapons is impractical for the mobility tradeoff.

We've seen in Ukraine that armor can't really mass without drawing artillery and the artillery is really good at rendering them combat ineffective - to say nothing of man portable systems.

File: 1699138992484553.jpg (154 KB, 1024x1024)

154 KB JPG

>>90915649
> Exoskeletons
> Drones
> E.C.M. and jamming everywhere.
> Dog-sized robots with cultivated brains serving from anywhere between crowd-control to missiles-that-run.
> Internet wars over the superiority of [insert energy weapon] versus depleted uranium mag rifles.
>> Neither is actually superior, they're just worlds apart as one is silent, flashless, and can reach better ranges while the other burns through armor, inflicts internal injuries, and incapacitate through heat.
>> Traditional orgs use magnetic because it is reliable, well-known, and works against all but the most advanced exoskeletons.

>>90972527
>I think we're going to see tanks move towards potentially a UGV direction, or a Leopard 1 because armoring against modern standoff weapons is impractical for the mobility tradeoff.
Nah, they just put APS on top of tank and give it some AA capability, Despite tanks being even easier to destroy in 60 only Germany went with "we don't need armor we will take speed".

It's funny because Russia was forst country with hard kill aps(back in USSR times) and first with almost 360 hardkill APS back in 90, that we know worked because French and Germany tested it, but still decided to not put it on any tank in their army despite having working tech for 30 years.

Wouldn't most future warfare be internal? As the divisions within societies grow and as climate change pushes the infrastructure of states to the breaking point, we might see much more internal strife. Warfare then would be the suppression of internal dissent through the use of drones and similar as has been discussed at length. I don't think major interstate wars will be a a thing by the time we reach the 2040s and most nation states will be busy trying to hold themselves together.

File: csm_MGCS_front_bodytext_9(...).png (595 KB, 2020x898)

595 KB PNG

>>90972527

Indeed, the overall trend is increasing automatization and modular design. Vehicles are getting heavier while not being all that much capable. They need to save several tons of weight and want vehicles to be several tons lighter than current platforms. The only way to do it is to reduce the number of crewmembers to 3 or even just 2 and use crewless turrets. Vehicles are also likely to be split into multiple specialized vehicles sharing the the same hull. All-in-one platforms will be ditched in favour of multi-platform concept.

>>90972789
we're already seeing proxy wars being fought

>>90966758
>all the foreign fighters in ukraine
>PMCs literally operating in numerous theatres Right Now
>PMC companies like Executive Outcomes are actually coming back
being a mercenary is more popular than ever

File: look at yourself.jpg (10 KB, 358x283)

10 KB JPG

>>90972900
>all the foreign fighters in ukraine
I'm under the impression that not even the Russian media is implying that the foreign fighters in Ukraine are AKSHUALLY US troops sent there by the CIA that are still pulling a pay check from the army and/or US PMCs hired and paid by the State Department.

>>90973697
no one mentioned americans fag
there's plenty of volunteers from numerous countries from korea to canada
those would count as PMCs

>>90972690
>went with "we don't need armor we will take speed".
Sufficient armor for a reasonable common threat - 100mm APCBC in the frontal arc. Active defenses are definitely going to be a bigger deal.

>>90976169
No. A PMC is a business entity that sells military services in big, useful batches. with officers and all.
It's not people who individually join foreign militaries out of personal conviction, unless you propose the secret existance of of something as demented as a DoorDash plattform for military services.

>>90922570
Ok this is some metal gear arse shit and we are fucking living in it

Lot's of talk about drones and Ukraine.
There are drone formations being used there, where they have drones being used to support other drones.
For example there is one where a drone that drops heavier explosives supported by a recon drone for situational awareness and one of those lighter drones that drops a small mortar shell to scare off infantry who might try to take pot shots.
Food for thought.

>>90917880
Oh yeah sure Ivan, Avdiivka is "not important", that's why your rooskie pals are throwing away thousands of lives a week trying to cap it, most of them before they even hit the contact line to drones and drone-guided arty strikes.

Sit down and have another vodka Ivan.

File: 1690618400234363.png (1.21 MB, 1024x1024)

1.21 MB PNG

>>90922570
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUf_8jyxbiM

>>90978506

If anything Avdiivka is a clear example of how the Ukrainian offensive would have worked out had the Ukrainians followed American advice of concentrating forces to attempt a breakthrough: fuckton of casualties. We'll see if it will pay out before Winters settles.

>>90978822
Must be a real pain explaining to US planners the concept of fighting against an opponent who has an intact and safe hinterland.

File: dropzonecommander02.jpg (66 KB, 621x414)

66 KB JPG

>>90915649
while it might not be exactly what you're looking for (since there's still some mechs and scifi handwaving), if you want something that still functions as a tabletop game the dropzone / dropfleet universe might interest you. its creator leans more toward hard scifi and extrapolations of modern tech than the science-fantasy settings that dominate the hobby. hyper sophisticated active countermeasures and cyber warfare dominate the battlefield, tanks are one-man low-profile and lightweight operations that fold flat for transport, automation is everywhere, engagements are quickly moving flashpoints between small fully-airmobile forces seizing objectives.

the original iterations of the games in particular are gold; the current publisher has unfortunately flubbed things a bit.

>>90936258
One important think is how artillery and aircraft interact. How I might do it
>Artillery and aircraft are purchased as off-map support
>Purchase a specific strike, meaning if you want to shell the whole map all game you'll have next to nothing on the table
>Aircraft are more versatile in potential targets being much more effective against vehicles and especially helicopters which artillery cannot engage
>Call in a strike the turn before it hits, mark the location on the map and a desired target (eg. a building, a specific squad, a specific vehicle)
>Artillery has a correction factor and can relocate up to a set distance from the target location to try and hit a target that moved
>Aircraft on the other hand can decide on their target the turn they arrive but as a consequence can be shot down, AA units can roll to shoot them down as can enemy aircraft
>Aircraft need to choose their loadout, more air-air missiles make them better at protecting against enemy aircraft, while more ground munitions make them more lethal in their strikes

So for example with artillery
>Side A decides to target a tank with artillery, puts a marker directly on the enemy tank
>Side B does his turn, decides to move his tank at max speed to hopefully avoid artillery fire and moves 12 inches
>Side A goes, artillery fires and corrects as close as possible to the tank, its artillery can correct up to 8 inches nicking the tank with its blast but not scoring a direct hit

For an aircraft example
>Side A has a stealth strike fighter and calls a strike next turn
>Side B has their own strike fighter and a SAM launcher
>When Side A's fighter arrives side B gets to intercept with each unit, their strike fighter fires two air-air missiles and misses, their SAM fires and likewise misses
>Side A exclusively loaded with missiles and fires off six air-ground missiles at various targets

>>90936258
>>90980270
Also I don't think loitering or smart munitions should automatically hit, I think they should be like active landmines, providing tactical flexibility. For example the unit has a set range which it expends up to its loiter point, after that each turn it spends loitering it loses some range until it's used in an attack or runs out of range/fuel and self-destructs or falls to the ground. So as an example
>Tank fires loitering Gun-Launched ATGM
>GLATGM has a range of 60" and user moves it 12" in one direction to its loitering point, now the unit can intercept any unit within 48" of it at any point
>Each turn it loses 6" of range, so if it spends two turns loitering its intercept distance is decreased to 36" inches
>After those two turns an enemy tank moves within 36" of the loitering munition and the user has it and two other ATGMs it sent to loiter at once against the tank hoping to overwhelm its APS

File: 3DPrintedDrone.png (834 KB, 1242x908)

834 KB PNG

For most of its history, the United States has had the luxury of fighting its wars from safe havens. No major international battles have taken place on the continental.The unprecedented immunity has enabled a particular American way of war that involves massive assaults launched from nearly invulnerable and geographically removed sanctuaries.

In future wars, however, new technologies may enable rival great powers to carry out precise and devastating attacks on U.S. military bases and logistics networks, even including those located within the United States itself. Advances in the fields of aerospace, robotics, machine learning, 3D printing, and nanomaterials are creating new classes of missiles and lethal drones that can be launched discreetly, travel great distances, and hamstring massed forces—all for a fraction of the cost of traditional manned weapons. In previous technological eras, striking America’s bases required daring raids, which were typically too small and sporadic to dent U.S. combat power, or nuclear missile strikes that would trigger a massive retaliation in kind.

The U.S. military would have trouble quickly responding to such attacks because it is so unprepared for them. Most bases have few, if any, missile defense systems or hardened shelters. Combat aircraft and warships often are parked in the open, side by side. Communications between command centers and soldiers in the field rely heavily on satellites that follow predictable orbits and on undersea cables that are mapped in open sources. The U.S. logistics force consists mainly of unarmed steam-powered vessels, most of which are due to be retired within 15 years, and U.S. warships and submarines cannot be reloaded at sea, so in wartime they have to commute between the combat theater and a handful of ports on U.S. and allied territory.

>>90976588
Resonable common threat is 120-125mm APFSDS.

>>90981356
>For most of its history, the United States has had the luxury of fighting its wars from safe havens.
Because after WW2 they were always invaders and attacked weak countries, because if they went after soviets it would mean mutual destruction.
What you describing is terrorism and guerilla warfare

>>90917129
>>HOOTL command structure
>>Human Out Of The Loop: At no point does a human person decide to strike a known target. The moment an enemy is identified, a computer assigns it to a shooter for an immediate strike.
There is an international treaty that makes this illegal

A human always has to hold the trigger legally speaking.

However people break these laws.

The big thing for wars like are being described by OP are going to be how does ECM develop, and how does EW develop, with sufficient ECM and EW for how important/useless autonomous weapons systems are.

>>90922719
>Set martial world records which still haven't been beat. Cry more.
Setting a world record for losing is not a world record you want to beat.

>>90949384
>Doesn't know about DEW

>>90978038
You are retarded

>>90982810
So where's the PMC behind these people then?

>>90978038
PMC is just fancy name for mercenaries, because mercenaries are illegal, so armed guys you pay for fighting aren't mercs they are PMC, what's diference in practice? None.

>>90982990
These people aren't mercs. They're integrated into the ukrainian armed forces, they're paid regular ukrainian soldier's wages.

>>90982935
The term "PMC" includes foreign volunteers, private military contractors, and other "soldiers of fortune".

you're welcome, stay in school kid

>>90983076
That is known as a mercenary.
You must be ESL since you don't know these definitions.
>"A mercenary is a private individual who joins a military conflict for personal profit, not a member of any official military. "

File: viper.jpg (79 KB, 1280x720)

79 KB JPG

>>90983160
WW2 apparently was the largest merchenary conflict humanity has ever seen.

>>90983160
They are part of the Ukrainian military apparatus. They don't belong to a PMC, they don't operate their own chain of command, they don't draw their wage from an intermediary private company between them and the Ukrainian MOF.

>>90983247
>people fighting for their countries and sent by their countries because alliances etc. is the same as random dudes going to a country to fight
You are completely retarded.nigga

>>90917129
>To survive, you must blind the enemy with a giant coordinated campaign of all-spectrum electronic warfare and take every step possible to deny their sensors or flood them with useless information.
The problem with this is you get antiradiation missiles that just home in on the source of the interference and blast it to smithereens. There's a reason electronic warfare is so tricky. You have to only target the right frequencies long enough to cause a disruption and only with the bare minimum power necessary, or else you'll get splattered.
Also known as, "why the United States bombed the Chinese Embassy in Serbia"

>>90966769
And just like the US learned 20 years ago Russia is learning PMCs are only good for raping local women.

>>90981659
>international treaty
International treaties are toilet paper and only matter until the point at which one signee defects.

>>90984307
Then try to imagine explaining some 70 year old US senator who never used computer in his life and only knowledge of AI comes from Terminator that you want to give computer weapon and allow it to shoot people without human order.

>>90984354
You tell him that it's only going to be programmed to shoot communists and that you're building a plant for making these things in his state to the tune of 1700 new highly paid technical jobs... for starts.

Like I'm on your side for this one. Human In/On the Loop is the only ethical implementation of automatic target acquisition, but Holden Bloodfeast (R - Iowa) isn't going to give a shit.

>>90984517
I think before you tell him it will only shoot commies he will scream about skynet and have heart attack.

>>90983363
Key difference is that while US considers their soldiers raping local women a diplomatic faux pas, for Russians (and other slavs) it's still considered legitimate way of suppressing civilian population.

>>90926315
The Soviets disagree
>I would like to express my candid opinion about Stalin's views on whether the Red Army and the Soviet Union could have coped with Nazi Germany and survived the war without aid from the United States and Britain. First, I would like to tell about some remarks Stalin made and repeated several times when we were "discussing freely" among ourselves. He stated bluntly that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war. If we had had to fight Nazi Germany one on one, we could not have stood up against Germany's pressure, and we would have lost the war. No one ever discussed this subject officially, and I don't think Stalin left any written evidence of his opinion, but I will state here that several times in conversations with me he noted that these were the actual circumstances. He never made a special point of holding a conversation on the subject, but when we were engaged in some kind of relaxed conversation, going over international questions of the past and present, and when we would return to the subject of the path we had traveled during the war, that is what he said. When I listened to his remarks, I was fully in agreement with him, and today I am even more so.
>- Nikita Khruschev

>On the whole the following conclusion can be drawn: that without these Western shipments under Lend-Lease the Soviet Union not only would not have been able to win the Great Patriotic War, it would not have been able even to oppose the German invaders, since it could not itself produce sufficient quantities of arms and military equipment or adequate supplies of fuel and ammunition. The Soviet authorities were well aware of this dependency on Lend-Lease. Thus, Stalin told Harry Hopkins [FDR's emissary to Moscow in July 1941] that the U.S.S.R. could not match Germany's might as an occupier of Europe and its resources.
>- Boris Vadimovich Sokolov, Russian historian

>>90984624
>Today [1963] some say the Allies didn't really help us… But listen, one cannot deny that the Americans shipped over to us material without which we could not have equipped our armies held in reserve or been able to continue the war.
>- Soviet Marshal Georgy Zhukov
Without all all food, clothing, raw materials, rail engines and railroad cars, and especially trucks, pretty much every single Soviet offensive would have stalled out and outrun its logistics in a matter of days, and if the Germans pushed them hard enough odds are their economy simply wouldn't be able to stand it

>>90915649
Are you 14? You write like a complete faggot. I don't want to talk about the stupid shit you wanted to talk about, specifically because you're such a faggot and can't convey your thoughts without establishing how much of a flaming homosexual you are first. I want you to kill yourself. Die, you ugly nigger. From the river to the sea.

>>90984644
>In total, the U.S. deliveries to the USSR through Lend-Lease amounted to $11 billion in materials (equivalent to $133 billion in 2021): over 400,000 jeeps and trucks; 12,000 armored vehicles (including 7,000 tanks, about 1,386 of which were M3 Lees and 4,102 M4 Shermans); 11,400 aircraft (of which 4,719 were Bell P-39 Airacobras, 3,414 were Douglas A-20 Havocs and 2,397 were Bell P-63 Kingcobras) and 1.75 million tons of food.
>It has been estimated that American deliveries to the USSR through the Persian Corridor alone were sufficient, by US Army standards, to maintain sixty combat divisions in the line.
>From October 1, 1941, to May 31, 1945, the United States delivered to the Soviet Union 427,284 trucks, 13,303 combat vehicles, 35,170 motorcycles, 2,328 ordnance service vehicles, 2,670,371 tons of petroleum products (gasoline and oil) or 57.8 percent of the aviation fuel including nearly 90 percent of high-octane fuel used, 4,478,116 tons of foodstuffs (canned meats, sugar, flour, salt, etc.), 1,911 steam locomotives, 66 diesel locomotives, 9,920 flat cars, 1,000 dump cars, 120 tank cars, and 35 heavy machinery cars. Ordnance goods (ammunition, artillery shells, mines, assorted explosives) provided amounted to 53 percent of total domestic consumption.
Without all this, they would not have been able to cope with the periodic German Genocide Swarm

>>90984580
Sure, doesn't make either of them effective combatants. Even conscripts are more useful than PMCs. The only practical use of PMCs is plausible deniability which falls apart when you have something like Blackwater or Wagner which is well known and specifically tied to the apparatus of state.

You would think that all the footage coming out of Gaza of Trophy cucking ATGM attacks on Merkavas would convince people that tanks are still relevant when equipped with modern defense systems.
Unfortunately retards are desperate and will believe Hamas’s claims of destroying 6 gorillion MBTs.

>>90916181
Kushranada prepared me for the horrors of drone warfare by age 9.

>>90984644
Germans ran out of fuel in 1942, this is why their next big battle Kursk was small scale attack on small salient on frontlines instead Barbarossa or Blau entire army group gigant swing, best Germans could do was stalemate.

>>90954417
America has been an empire since 1945. It created its empire to ensure a rules-based liberal international order, because things like large scale war are very BAD FOR BUSINESS. The question is whether the empire can survive being aware of itself.

>>90984644
It would have just ended with neither side able to advance, the Germans were never beating the Soviets even if the Soviets got 0 Lend Lease, the difference is if the Soviets can beat the Germans or it turns into a stalemate.

>>90986910
Stalin and Moustache Man were sending out diplomatic feelers in 1942 in Sweden iirc. For Moustache Man and the anti-communist coalition, leaving Russia as a severely weakened rump state would probably be an acceptable endgame. It would certainly mitigate the ability of the Soviets to do International Communism shenanigans like they did in Spain and Germany.

>>90984703
The P in PMC is an important part of the definition. I'll let it be an exercise for the reader to figure out what that word means, but being directly employed by the government and not a _______ corporation is a very strong indicator that someone isn't a PMC.

>>90986953
>leaving Russia as a severely weakened rump state would probably be an acceptable endgame
Nah, first Hitler wanted conquest of bad comies, second his main goal were caucasus oil fields, he was running out of fuel, so no caucasus no peace, wermacht run out of fuel and game over. You can best see germany fuel reserves by offensive, Barbarossa enormous invasion, then year later Fall Blau, known for battle of Stalingrad but it's main objective was Baku, it didn't even get close, 43 Kursk, main German offensive is at some small salient, 44/45 some small counterattacks against soviets and Bulge when germany attacked and ran out of fuel, entire operation relied on capturing allies fuel depos.
So Moustache Man above all needed fuel.

File: andrew-andreev-3.jpg (350 KB, 1844x778)

350 KB JPG

>>90963592
>Kill Chains are transforming to AI-enabled Kill Webs where HOOTL weapons will communicate with each other
I'm starting to think the reason for the Frankenstein Complex is we're basically asking for it.

>>90987134
I should have clarified "in an alternative timeline where the FDR's State Department uncharacteristically decided they didn't like communism" and didn't put their thumb on the scale.

In our timeline, Moustache Man and his generals' best chance for a negotiated peace was to cut off Baku from the rest of the Soviet Union. In that respect, WW2 or at least the part where the Americans, British, and French decided to put down Germany again was a closer run thing than raw industrial output would have indicated

>>90987125
>government will gladly lean on private social media companies to censor people they don't like
>but the military industrial complex is much too honest to do that
>>90987134
>So Moustache Man above all needed fuel.
First the numbers don't add up, now you're telling me he didn't even have enough gas?

>>90987186
When the military hires private companies, the employees of those companies still work for those companies and are therefore privately employed. When someone works for the government, they are publicly employed. Public employees are not private employees by definition, and have quite a few different rules and laws around the actions they can take and the stance their employer has to have with them. Someone who is in the military and someone who works for a company contracted by the military have very, very different rules and standards and pay and ability to freely quit at any time.

>>90987248
They can still be agents of the state, formally or colloquially. Palantir might be a private company, but it's functionally an agent of the US Government.

>>90987248
>Someone who is in the military and someone who works for a company contracted by the military have very, very different rules and standards and pay and ability to freely quit at any time.
The discussion was about plausible deniability, not whether PMCs get MLK day off.

>>90987269
But it's employees are not public sector employees and have different rules than members of the actual military.
The difference between a Palantir employee and a member of the French Foreign Legion is that the FFL members are actually employed by the French military directly. The military didn't go hire a company to fill a military role, they have directly enlisted soldiers from a foreign state into their actual military. Some of those soldiers may have done it for financial gain, but that also applies to many non-foreign soldiers. The line for what is and is not a mercenary can't be drawn inside the actual military itself. They have to be outsiders as part of their employment.

>>90987313
Holy shit we know what a private contract is just address the fucking point.
>no, it wasn't us, it was a group we paid to do what we said, it's totally different
Give me a break.

>>90987342
The fucking point is that soldiers in the actual military are not mercenaries. It doesn't matter what country they're from. They can't be mercenaries when they work directly for the military under the same terms as national soldiers. They are treated as regular armed forces.

>>90987418
I understand the other anon's point. He's saying that a foreign legion isn't a mercenary force. That's a fair position to take.

>>90987125
Who writes the paychecks to the workers is wholly irrelevant. Nobody thinks Blackwater just decided to send troops to Iraq and the US didn't decide to hire them, nobody thinks that Wagner acts of their own volition and just decided "hey lets invade Ukraine alongside the Russian army, wow they are giving us their supplies? So nice of them to help out someone completely unrelated to them."

>>90986910
>>90926315
>>90922809
>>90922647
>weaker states
>France
The post hoc copes people come up with that the Germans were actually an incompetent fighting force when they conquered the continent is always hilarious

>>90989978
It's kinda funny that everybody points at France, but the Brits imitating valliant sir Robin splendidly during those events is a point of pride for some reason.

>>90989978
>1938/1939
>Frace european Population 42 milions
>3rd Reich Population 76 milions(86 if count annexed parts of Czechoslovakia)
>France steel production 6221
>Germany steel production 17902
I won't mention air superiority
Maginot line was built with purpose, France knew that Germany is stronger than them, this is why their entire strategy for war was to wait behing defence line and wait couple years for germany to bleed out while attacking it.