Watched The Fog of War last week, was pretty good, McNamara seems like a nice chap
Read The Russo-Japanese War In Perspective: World War Zero not long ago, got The Japanese Empire left and I believe that'll be me done with Paine's bibliography
As of recent that's all I can recall, also went to Bovington a few months ago so got some pictures if you happen to want those
good shit I say
I was looking at the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Naval_Treaty#Terms
and its most famous for US-UK vs Japan. But what really struck me was the relative decline of France as the 2nd largest empire and victor in WW1, nearly down to half of Japan's strength, and on equality with Italy
Isn't the US military planning on changing to the new 6.8mm rounds anyway?
yeah and they are also replacing the M16 series of rifles(maybe M4 too) with a newer rifle.
Probably not, talks of replacing the m16/m4 platform have been done to death and I think it's unlikely anything will be pushed thru any time soon, unless it's something truly groundbreaking and innovative.
m16/m4 platform and 5.56
I just had a sudden realization. Tanks are a lie. Nothing but an interesting chapter in humanity's long history of retardation.
The English invented the tank to do one thing in particular but only 15 years later they had one of their schizophrenic crisis that usually move history; having forgotten the original purpose of the tank, there was the cavalry vs infantry vs cruiser tank debate that spilled over to France as well. In the US, the Army funded its separate Army Tank Corps, only to be defunct shortly after. By Congress. The Army's generals had a number of workarounds like the so called Armored Cars. The Germans, who had copied the English tank not knowing what it was originally supposed to do, had one of their brilliant epiphanies when they invented Blitzkrieg (which in all likelihood was inspired by Patton's massive, long range maneuver exercises in the South) . German tanks were, by all objective standards, godawful. They had weak armor and crappy guns. But they knew how to use them.
The only period tanks ever made sense was in the early Cold War. Read about Soviet Armored Armies. NATO thought the Russians could more or less march all the way to the Rhine in a few days or weeks. Active defense was a pretty bad doctrine, at least worse than the WW2 tank destroyer battalion doctrine. The missile was only in its embryo stage. AT weapons were still using old tech. I've read active defense was more of a political thing than anything, to calm down the anxious generals who wanted their GIs to do more than sit in holes while waiting for massive Russian armored columns. AirLand Battle was peak NATO doctrine imo. Hitting command centers deep into enemy territory with conventional methods like artillery and air strikes.
The bottom line is that as missile payload increases linearly, tank armor must increase exponentially. Read about directed charges and Newtonian penetrators if you don't believe me. In the Obama administration the US made a significant number of arms sales to the Ukraine but it was only in the Trump administration that the US started selling AT missiles and that move was considered a game changer. Tanks today are just big wastes of money. There should be only tracked IFVs and wheeled tank destroyers.
The missile is the queen of the modern battlefield. All vehicles, planes, tanks etc have only ever been delivery methods for killing devices and the modern missile can do this job for a relatively cheap price. You can read all about aircraft and tank specs but game developers are often arrested for espionage for looking too deeply into missiles. I wish it were acceptable to be a missile otaku. People like space stuff like rockets and military stuff so it's only natural someone would like missiles too. The Sprint is a favorite.
>>51951> went to Bovington
Did you see the tanks?>>53531
Say that tanks are outdated to my face and not over the internet, you fake Yukari.
More of a military poncho guy.
Very versatile and adaptable.
>>53556>Did you see the tanks?
Indeed I did, was pretty good
Any warlocks here?
If tanks are boring then drones must be absolutely mind-numbing.
Leopard is such a cuck tank.
It's really exciting to FINALLY see some novel firearm/ammo designs, after 60 years of stagnation and endless AR-15, AR-18, and AK clones and derivatives. I was getting sick and tired of hearing people parrot "small arms design has plateaued, the AR-15/M4 is peak and cannot be improved upon!", and just sick in general of how fucking boring the gun industry has become. Even if these rifles don't succeed in replacing the M4, I hope they are successful enough in testing to show that, yes, there are still improvements to be made in small arms.
non-combat military only worth it for the extreme structured lifestyle in my opinion. at any given point you can just ask someone higher up about what to do for any situation you find yourself in. everything has a procedure and tasks are completed in properly documented ways. really cool if you have given no thought to your life, because you don't have to think
but yeah the work and company is probably going to suck and bore you if you have a sliver of intelligence however
I remind myself of this fact often.>>57231
technical roles that have a civilian equivalent can be okay. like tech stuff in the air force, for example.
It can get better in certain commando units and non-combat roles like intel. Boot camp and your standard 11bang bang occupation is basically high school though.
How believable is any of the info in the 3rd pic?
They are called recon I think and yeah I think it's kinda cool too
I remember watching a movie about the Battle of Midway when I was a kid with my grandfather. I actually felt really ashamed after watching that movie because I could tell it went over in chronological order exactly what happened. It explained and showed, exactly what happened. But I think after watching it I was more confused about what had happened. As a kid watching it, what I saw was the Americans have everything in their favor, lose almost every single engagement in the course of the battle, lose a carrier…and they still won. I watched it and couldn't understand that they won and how, even with everything explained to me. I left that film with a thought of, "Maybe I'll understand it if I come back to it again when I'm older."
Well, I'm older, and watched embed related. Now I feel like I finally understand what exactly happened at Midway. Also, I want to relate a theory.
It's commonly related that the reason the Americans won Midway was because of superior intelligence. They knew that the Japanese would attack, where they would attack, when they would attack, and had a complete estimated order of battle. However, I'd like to posit a different theory: the Americans won because they had superior damage control systems (e.g., better sprinklers, less flamable material, storing ammunition safely, etc.).
One way I like to estimate whether an argument is the reason for success or failure is to reverse who had it and who didn't. Just look at what happened in the battle. The Akagi, Kaga, Soryu, and Hiryu all took one hit–everything caught fire, blew up, and sunk. The USS Yorktown–after JUST getting back from repairs–took one bombing with a still operational flight deck, took ANOTHER bombing and was counted as a loss, but it was still standing hours later. Finally, after THREE MORE TORPEDOES did it finally go down. Imagine if the Japanese carriers had the same level of damage control systems. The Americans would have been lucky to take out one carrier. Imagine if the American damage control systems were as bad as the Japanese. Even if things played out the same, the Hiryu's first counterattack would have easily sunk the Yorktown before possibly going on to take on the Hornet and Enterprise.
I think the traditional list for the reasons the Americans won Midway was:
1 - Superior intelligence
2 - Dumb luck
3 - Better radar
I'd like to posit that maybe, as stupid and simplistic as it sounds, a big reason U.S. navy won was simply because of better damage control systems. At the very least, I think it deserves a spot in the top three reasons and should be remembered to this day for the important lesson it serves.
Pretty much everything not small arms was interesting, until you had to use (and service, maintain and clean) them again and again during military service.
Please don't paint over an antique or functional surplus item with hippie dogwhistles. Get a Chinese reproduction or NOS CCCP helmet from Ebay or Amazon and spraybomb it black with rust paint. You can then draw on whatever you want with paint, nail polish, or a whitewall pen. If you want the peace sign to be somewhat accurate, get a Vietnam War era USGI M-1 helmet and write on the canvas cover. Note that the by the 1960s, the Peace Sign when applied to USGI's gear implied "Peace through means of eliminating all communists", so you'll want to chose a different symbol or slogan if you wish the actually signal that you desire peace in the conventional sense.
I thought the Americans won WWII because of overwhelming amounts of industrial capacity, like the zerg rush meme.
I'm talking just about the Battle of Midway, not all of WWII.
You don't like horsies?
I hate this imageboard.
Get out of here propagandist
Is there any information presented in particular that you take issue with?
Do you have a source of information that is more cretable that disagrees with any of the information presented.
Do you have evidence that what was presented is actually propaganda and not just some nerd's opinion based on publicly available information?
If you only came to shitpost and screech then I am going to have to ask you to leave.
>>61401>a source of information that is more cretable
Probably completely unrelated, but I've noticed this epistemological issue crop up recently. If anyone has a fancy set of philosophical keywords that I can look up, I would appreciate it.
- Source A and C says that X happens at time 0.
- Source B says that not X happens at time 0.
- As of time 0, source A is considered 'credible.' Source B and C are new sources.
- At time 1, source A notes that source C says "X," and states that they are credible.
- At time 1, source C notes that source B says "not X," and that source A, which is "credible" says "X," and therefore concludes that B is "not credible.
- At time 2, source A can take C's findings since they are "credible" now, and claims that B is "not credible" as well.
After a period of time, the well of "credible sources" circle their wagons around each other and likewise claim every other conceivably new source as "not credible." Another way I've heard this problem summarized is "Can you show a credible source is no longer credible using only credible sources?"
Wikipedia is the epitome of this. When you start going down the rabbit hole of studying some of the edit wars that have gone on in the past five years, you realize they're always, always lawyering about "sources." And slowly over time the list of "credible sources" has diminished into an ever smaller and smaller pool of completely self-serving corporate media brands.
I remember getting into Chomsky's Manufactured Consent, but this seems way more blatant than whatever he was talking about.
He's right. Who defines the term "credible" ?? It's ZOG all the way down
It was a pretty legitimate reply to the previous post.
It's a red haring that aims to get as far off topic as humanly possible.
No it's not valid.
If the topic is "credibility", defining and understanding what is accepted as credible, or the criteria upon which a source may be found to be credible, is the first step into the discussion.