Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


tyrspawn last won the day on March 13 2015

tyrspawn had the most liked content!

About tyrspawn

  • Birthday 08/03/1987

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • Skype

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling


  • Location
    New York
  • Interests
    History, Milsim, Metal, Virtue Philosophy
  • Occupation
    Historian, librarian, researcher

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

tyrspawn's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (3/3)



  1. Every army of any sophistication has light infantry. Light infantry can be defined by troops that carry their equipment by their own power. Light infantry may be transported by vehicles but do not have vehicles inside their formations. Classical examples are airborne, special forces, green berets, rangers, SEALs etc. They are used to: screen, disrupt, fix, capture high value areas, encircle, recce and perform special actions. I would argue the use of light infantry has only increased as time has gone on and global COIN and false flag operations grow in intensity and scope. In conventional warfare you still need a group of foot mobile commandos to seize key points that are unreachable by larger, slower moving formations.
  2. I estimated where it was (accurately) and then assaulted it at the end of the mission.
  3. Agreed. The DPRK would get raped if they ever fought a NATO force - NATO air superiority would be immediate, thus leading to immediate paralyzation of the already scarce DPRK supply trains. It's depressing to think about. but I honestly think the DPRK army would starve to death within 3 weeks considering how they are already in a semi-starved state. I think it would be a fun game only in the 1980s or before. Modern would be quite a slaughter fest.
  4. On a related topic, does LTCOL Mark Gibson (MGIBSON) still hang around here? This is the sort of thing he would probably dig.
  5. Hey Zipuli! Good to see you around m8. There's definitely some things I wish were similar to SB.
  6. The Abrams design is focused on crew survivability. Minimal ammo is stored in the chasis, most is stored in a magazine in the turret which has reinforced blast doors, which only open when a handle is depressed, then automatically closes when the round comes out. It also has automatic fire suppression systems (and automatic gas/shock venting in the magazine) and extensive spall lining.
  7. There is no doubt that the A-10 pilots are bad asses and that they did some cool stuff in the past - but it doesn't change the facts of reality. Just because I feel a "warm fuzzy" about the a-10 doesn't enable them to overcome and destroy impossible odds. Why political actors do what political actors do is irrelevant to me. I'd be more impressed if I saw a white paper by a command arguing that the a-10s would survive in a war against Russia. Ukraine is arguably the worst environment for the A-10 against a modern air defense system - the only thing worse would be desert.
  8. Again. It's not plausible for the US air command to include the A-10 in the Ukrainian theater. IT makes no sense for an aircraft which cannot defend itself to be put on suicide missions. End of story. They were on their way out for the Gulf War, and had to have a complete doctrine change at the last second to become useful. this is captured pretty good in this awesome book: http://www.amazon.com/Warthog-Flying-Potomac-Books-Warriors/dp/1574888862
  9. What is your point about the a-10 being able to carry AGM-65, LGBs, JDAMs etc? So can the f-16/f15e, except they are a button push away from cat 1 and being able to pull 9 Gs in sustained turns at double the speed of the a-10. The a-10 is also very sluggish when carrying more than a few weapons. A typical gulf war loadout was 2 mavericks and 4 bombs. Your video of the a-10 pulling is not to my point - the a-10 has a very quick turn rate at slow speeds, but it cannot do sustained break turns, which is my point. THose are required for SAM defense. The a-10 will depart when trying to perform break turns. The a-10C project was an emergency effort to make the A-10 worth it's weight. It's sustained the life of the a-10 into our COIN wars, but it would never survive any a modern army with modern air defenses.
  10. The really infuriating thing is that when my one stinger managed to finally shoot down the Hind, the missile was fired to the SOUTH EAST - not the north. I presume all my dudes were facing the wrong direction, but the missiles were still coming from the north.
  11. So yeah. When I started I Thought it would be really cool, saving private esque street to street fighting. But as you can see the armor rolled in ahead of the infantry (retard mode), got blow nup, then the infantry mindlessly followed after them. Going down obvious kill zones.
  12. Actually - the SU-25 is more maneuverable and faster than the A-10. The US air defense scheme is based upon establishing AIR SUPREMACY (claiming the air space with fighters) - the organic air defense support within US maneuver forces is laughable in comparison to the Russians. There are less threats to endanger the SU-25, and when they do, more opportunities to defend against them. Ultimately it boils down to PLAUSIBLE DOCTRINAL DECISIONS. It's not plausible for US commanders to deploy A-10s against modern Russian forces. It is plausible for SU-25s to be deployed.
  13. The A-10 would not survive in a war against Russia - it's made obsolete against Russian tactical and operational air defenses (MANPADS, SA-8s, SA-11s, SA-17s, SA-15 etc), to say nothing of the strategic level air defenses (S-300 etc). The A-10 only survives today in a war against foot mobile forces who are using strelas, the occasional Igla and heavy machine guns and with complete air supremacy on the NATO side. In a war against russia air supremacy is impossible, air superiority is difficult to achieve and every motor rifle company's MANPADS poses a significant threat of shoot down to an A-10. The f-16 and F-15Es in CMBS can defend against SAMs and fighters, and also perform high speed pop-up attacks. The a-10 is on the chopping block and every year there is something on the news about them being potentially retired. The biggest assets of the A-10 are the cannon and it's armor - both of which are useless in modern combat. In order to use the cannon, a slant range of less than 3 miles is required for light targets and less than 1 mile for tanks, putting it well within range of modern russian MANPADS and SHORADS. The A-10 cannot defend a system like the SA-15 or even SA-19. The armor is from an age in which the most sophisticated Russian SHORAD was the ZSU-23/24 Shilka. It's questionable whether or not this armor would have been effective against the Shilka, but it's surely out classed by the SA-19 and SA-15, which are common features of Russian regiments. The outcome of being so heavily armored is that the A-10 is prone to flat spins and departures when pulling more than 4 G in a sustained turn and rapid loss of air speed, both of which are deadly in a defensive environment.
  • Create New...