acrashb

I’ve been reading those folks pushing the idea that Iran intentionally flubbed the attack on Israel with some…restrained amusement. Us old folks remember how analysis of the USSR routinely made the same threat-inflating mistake as analysts responded, consciously or not, to pressures that essentially drove them to see every flaw, error or omission as yet another devious maneuver by those mustachio twisting apparatchiks in Moscow to lower our guard. 
The reality is that yes, Iran didn’t throw the kitchen sink at Israel but at the same time, the idea was for Iran to establish a higher level of deterrence against Israeli strikes directly on Iranian territory, assets and personnel. To do that, Iran need to actually show the ability to do significant damage in ways that Israel cannot address. What happened instead? Iran managed to unite Israel’s neighbors around it (despite, Bibi and Gaza!) to such a degree that they are bragging quietly how many Iranian munitions they shot down (including by the pilot/princess of Jordan) and celebrating (not very quietly) how well they can and will cooperate against Iran. 
Deterrence is information without the cure. If Iran had managed to get through and wallop a couple of Israel airfields and hit a scattering of other bases, that would not have set off a conflagration and would have delivered a solid deterrence message. It would have been “We send 300 and hit 20% of the time. Imagine if we send 3000?”. Now, Israel and the rest of the region can imagine it and has reason to think they can handle it (if, again more to Iran’s strategic detriment, they keep the US onside and willing to lend support).
Deterrence isn’t achieved by demonstrating what you can’t do. 

Heard about this tactics before, but don't recall the clips from it:
This war provides never-ending stream of challanges as how to siumlate it for potentiall future Combat Mission games.

Just to set the record straight: 'not long ago' is about 60 years (depending on which law you mean).

What the extreme fringes do and say affects regular people, at least in rich coastal cities. It’s certainly not just idiots screaming at each other online. One ridiculous example of this is hosptials at least where I am no longer can say “mother”, but have to use the word “birthing person”. Remember the Stanford guide for acceptable words? It does bleed into our lives. More practically, at my previous employer, a major software company, anything but the most progressive political stance was unacceptable to voice- and that stance was voiced quite a bit- much to the befuddlement of all the foreign employees. This is not atypical at large, well-paying software companies.
 

But my point is that not only liberal democracies should be allies against a country which uses a war of aggression as means of policy and wants to upset the political balance. First things first - let's fight the aggressor together with everyone who wants to protect the status quo and principle of peaceful resolution of international disputes, and then the EU can drag the Ukraine over the coals over fulfillment of accession criteria.  They are different things.

The main problem with this attitude is:
1.: It doesn't respect other peoples opinion on the matter, which very common when it comes to this topic.
2.: You guys acting like the west giving charity to Ukraine and not pursuing its political goals. The hypocrisy is strong with the argument that if you don't like our values than join the other side. Which would be a very big problem to NATO.
3.: This topics are not just blown out of proportion but doesn't matter at all. This is why its such a hotly discussed topic on the west. Cause it is a dividing matter, and have no consequence in peoples life. You can chew on it like a bone without any brain based on believes.
So i think we could give the courtesy to Haiduk that he has his values that can be respected not just yours.

That attitude is a huge mistake - this is what keeps the ranks of the West's enemies are always full. If the only ones who are worthy of support are those who share the - rather unique-  views of the West on social issues such as homosexualism, religion, ethnic minorities etc. then it is no wonder that finding allies in places such as Africa and Asia is difficult. Kabul University tweets about graduation of the gender studies class a couple of months before the Taliban stormed Kabul come to mind. It is an unforced own goal on part of the West.
If the aim is to defend the post-Cold War order against an attempt to change borders by force of arms, then every victim of aggression deserves to be supported, regardless of his social policy. Think Kuwait 1990-1991.
 
 

Interesting ... will they also add on some aid for Ukraine?
 

Even wrong clock shows a right time twice for a day. As for me "western values" is that, what was in gold 70-90th. Not this sh...t, like a hate of J.Rowling because she dare to use a word "women" instead "menstruating persons". I don't want to live in such idiotic society

Israel hasn't a border with Iran. Well, maybe Hezbollah proxy in Lebanon. So, they mostly will be needed in long range weapon, which USA rejected to give to Ukraine. Guys. Wake up. West, stucking on "tolerance, multiculturalism, diversity, inclusive, 100500 genders, LGBT, BLM, coala saving and carbon trail" lost sense of reality in that time, when dictatorships were arming, using western technologies to contest post WWII world order. WW3 is coming. It will not be like WWII, It will begin like several distant regional conflicts tied with one goal - to weaken West. And then... If this probes are not stopped, the global clash will begin. So, Iran-Israeli conflict maybe it's not good for us in short perspective, but probable weaken of Iran it's a good for future. If some of "Evil Axis" will get bright blow at own teeth, than less probability that West will fight directly in huge global war in nearest 10-15 years

So this is why I think artillery is not really going anywhere.  Let’s say China (or the US) come up with a snazzy APS system that can stop all strike drones cold.  A system like this can still standoff 10kms+ and light up traditional conventional units.  No tech exists to create a massive bubble of protection for small UAS out that far and if it did ground warfare itself would be changed forever regardless.  So this system plus precision artillery, plus strike drones, plus next-gen ATGMs creates an enormous denial pressure on the future battlefield.  The cost to even try to maneuver goes up exponentially.  The losses will be very high compared to previous wars for doing the same tactical action.  As both artillery and drone ranges get longer we are going to see an entire over-the-horizon battle before real people even get near to each other.

This. The war in Ukraine is getting people thinking about it but the first terrorist attack on a city conducted by heat seeking, pattern recognition driven autonomous drones is going to galvanize the entire West.

We're all arguing this on a board that's dedicated to a wargame that has implemented at least some level of autonomy at the small unit level for 20 years.  And made it work in reasonable compute times for battalion sized swarms on computers that were nothing special.  The only thing it doesn't have is the physical sensor inputs, and those are pretty straightforward.  And it was all implemented by Charles and maybe a helper (I haven't kept up).  Charles himself might even count as an autonomous biocomputer, since he's really just a brain in a jar.

After this war....definitely a race to the bottom.  Ukraine had a $6B defence budget in 2021 - Russia had a $60B+ budget.  Ukraine's ability to stop Russia, push them back and now hold again is in no small part to employment of unmanned systems.
No government on earth is going to "just say no" on that level of disruption based on humanitarian or ethical reasons unless they are so secure that they can somehow take the high ground...looking at places like Iceland.  
What a lot of people in the AP mine and Cluster munitions camps did not understand is just how secondary or even tertiary these systems are to modern militaries.  Or maybe they did and were good with pushing the needle where they could.  Regardless, precision unmanned systems are by definition not indiscriminate. Will they be abused, most definitely.  But the opportunity/risks to the very legal and moral frameworks that would try to outlaw these systems is simply too high.  Fully autonomous systems are not a force multiplier, they are a deterministic weapon.  And as such, we are definitely headed towards them.

Basically, because they are still situations where a gun is useful, whether stopping enemy/hostile vessels, supporting ground troops, etc. where a missile would not work or would be overkill. 
Most modern warships, like U.S. or RN destroyers also only typically have 1x 4.5 or 5 inch gun as its main gun armament.

The why do we still hear this mantra coming out of western militaries today?  We had a MGen declare this exact statement at the opening of an Operational Symposium last month.  I have heard this mantra as the primary reason to have tanks for years now.
I agree entirely that history - and this war in particular - clearly demonstrate that 100 years of worrying about tanks has created a world where tanks are being hunted into extinction by a multitude of systems.  I also think we have a cultural block we cannot get past.

Ok, but doesn’t your second example invalidate your thesis?  A naval artillery shell does not appear to have a flat energy-time curve but of all your examples it is likely the hardest to defend against. In fact ballistic weapons appear to be the hardest to counter and none of them have what I think you are describing as a flat curve.
Energy is definitely part of all this but I think how that energy is translated into effect is the core idea you appear to be driving at (we should leave aside effects for now as that is a pretty complicated concept in its own right).

It looks like they have the armored clown car bug from CM:BO.  
Please fix or do somefink!

Can't see the thread but looking at his posting stream I am not ready to add him to my list of "trusted SMEs" anytime soon.

+1
Oh, how I wish we could like your posts right now...

While the delay in approving further American aid for Ukraine is regrettable and has likely resulting in Ukraine losing more ground and infrastructure lately, does any else feel that a positive outcome of all of this is that it has spurred Europe to act more decisively in bringing forward their own aid and future commitments?

In the long run, that seems to be a very positive development.

Chow = food/lunch
Clearing barrel = when you enter a base you go through a process of unloading your weapons, ensuring they're unloaded, and proving to others they're unloaded. Usually it's routine - remove the magazine, cock the weapon, inspect the chamber, fire the action in a safe direction which is usually a sand filled barrel to trap any errant rounds. Sometimes its embarrassing if you get the sequence mixed up, which seems to be what happened here - the negative peer pressure that lands on you for doing that is intense, and lasts a long time. That's because occasionally its fatal if you get mixed up AND neglect to point it in a safe direction.
Getting it wrong is due to laziness, extreme fatigue, and always poor discipline.
 

The RU guys went to the US Dining Facility. As they entered they were required to clear their weapons. A few of them forgot to clear the round from their chambers, and accidently fired said round into the sand filled metal barrel provided for just that purpose. Doing so is frowned upon.

More concrete indications that the West is waking up:
 
 

More concrete indications that the West is waking up: