db_zero

I used Wikipedia to refresh my memory, but we have a better source-Ultradave-this is his area of expertise.
I figured he would chime in on this and he didn’t disappoint, now we all are better informed.

Neutrons are not stopped well by steel. To stop neutrons you need hydrogenous material - water, plastic. Gamma rays are stopped well by steel. The ceramics used fall somewhere in the middle. Concrete is used as shielding for example, and atomic mass wise is in the ballpark of ceramics. Steel can be pretty much transparent to neutrons, a fact we have to take into account in shield designs where a structure may be made up of a web of steel beams. A transverse stiffener in a wall can be a superhighway for neutrons in a direct line of it.
Dave

This is the typical story, and is wildly innacurate. It's an "enhanced radiation weapon". The idea behind it is that the enhanced radiation will penetrate the thick armor of tanks, and yes, kill or incapacitate the crew. However, they are STILL nuclear weapons, with massive blast effects. The "neutron bombs" planned were about the same power as normal thermal fission weapons of the time. They just cause LESS destruction than a comparable thermal fission weapon of the same size, but LESS is a very nebulous term when you are talking about multiple KT range nuclear weapons. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 10-20KT weapons. A neutron weapon would cause maybe 30%-50% the blast yield of those. Dwell on that nugget for a while.
There is no leave the cities and towns intact unless the weapons are detonated in the middle of nowhere. 
Another point is that gamma rays are like extremely high energy X-rays. Neutrons are bullets. AND they activate elements making them radioactive. Steel and it's constituent alloys, for example (Iron, cobalt, manganese). They then become radioactive with varying half lives depending on isotopes. The Cobalt used in hardened steels is the most concern because of its 5.27 year half life. Most of the others are in the neighborhood of an hour to 6 weeks or so. 
Since there is blast there is also downwind fallout. Prevailing weather I believe, is not favorable to the Russians for fallout (but do they even care, really?)
Anyway, the whole neutron bomb leaving the infrastructure intact stuff is a wild exaggeration.

Dave

Probably nothing more than a coincidence but on same day the White House announced they will be sharing intelligence and targeting information the Russian flagship gets hit and sunk.
There is also a squadron of F-18 Wild Weasels operating in Europe and it was mentioned in a report they are capable of using their capabilities hundreds of miles away from within NATO airspace. These aircraft do more than just jam radars…
Like I said nothing more than a coincidence. The US would never interfere like this in a war, just like Russia would never interfere in US elections.

Probably nothing more than a coincidence but on same day the White House announced they will be sharing intelligence and targeting information the Russian flagship gets hit and sunk.
There is also a squadron of F-18 Wild Weasels operating in Europe and it was mentioned in a report they are capable of using their capabilities hundreds of miles away from within NATO airspace. These aircraft do more than just jam radars…
Like I said nothing more than a coincidence. The US would never interfere like this in a war, just like Russia would never interfere in US elections.

Probably nothing more than a coincidence but on same day the White House announced they will be sharing intelligence and targeting information the Russian flagship gets hit and sunk.
There is also a squadron of F-18 Wild Weasels operating in Europe and it was mentioned in a report they are capable of using their capabilities hundreds of miles away from within NATO airspace. These aircraft do more than just jam radars…
Like I said nothing more than a coincidence. The US would never interfere like this in a war, just like Russia would never interfere in US elections.

I’ll fess up…the ancient alien part was probably me. I was referring to the anti drone tech reportedly carried on the ship that was being tracked by strange object's-something that is quite common and NOTAMs have been posted about.
and said if anti drone tech is light enough for a human to carry then it’s easy to mount anti drone tech on a tank…

US officials are meeting with defense industry leaders to discuss long range plans to produce more weapons. 
 
Supply chain issues and lack of skilled labor will also be discussed. 
 
Zelinsky asked for 2000 Javelin’s a week and based on estimates of inventory and production times it looks like 2000 a month isn’t going to happen.
I’ve seen a few videos where about every other soldier had an AT weapon and I’ve heard estimates of the AT weapon to soldier ratio that sounded crazy. 
 

Most of the new soldiers are basically kids with a few days of training so fire discipline is probably lax.
Social media is probably another factor- a tic tok video is worth a lifetime of memories so getting a good video with an AT weapon is gold to many of these internet savvy soldiers.

We don’t know that yet. As mentioned other systems are killing tanks and many vehicles were simply abandoned. We also don’t know if Ukrainians are just firing off AT weapons at abandoned vehicles just to do so. Some videos seem to suggest that 
No-standard doctrine on how many ATGMs isn’t going to be changed on a whim. Infantry is already carrying enough weight without adding more stuff to carry. These AT systems are not light and they are also bulky.
 
Videos showing a preponderance of AT weapons with Ukrainian soldiers also shows they are not as weighted down as standard US soldiers-many don’t have body armor.
Its possibly also wasteful and not necessary to start adding more ATGMs to NATO troops if other systems are capable of killing tanks.

Javelin/Stinger inventory and production estimates.
https://www.csis.org/analysis/will-united-states-run-out-javelins-russia-runs-out-tanks

Javelin/Stinger inventory and production estimates.
https://www.csis.org/analysis/will-united-states-run-out-javelins-russia-runs-out-tanks

This approach sends a message to any potential despot that the way to avert NATO/US direct intervention is to possess a nuke.
The days of the post Soviet collapse where the West could go in and use its conventional military might to shape events is gone.
We’re now back in the days Putin is more familiar with. The Cold War days where proxy wars were tightly managed so as to not lead to nuclear annihilation, only this time around the nuclear club has grown.
Win or lose Putin has just re-arranged the game.
 

We're in a new world. Putin won't stop till he wins or get offed.
Even if he eventually loses there is going to be serious damage to the global economic system.
On a personal level you better be prepared for higher gas prices, higher food prices, recession, potential loss of job, stock market volatility to name just a few things that are probably going south. This couldn't have happened at a worse time. 
Unless this war stops soon-and I don't see that happening the damage economically and the suffering like starvation and chaos in the less developed world is going to be great, perhaps catastrophic. Even if Ukraine wins, its not going to be quick so the economic damage is something we probably can't avoid.
The absolute worst case...we all know what that is.
Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan where 1% were affected while the other 99% went about their lives unaffected, this war is going to hurt everyone one way or another.

As drones proliferate they will become commodity items. Like every other tech device, the cost goes down, capabilities increase and thrown away after one use is possible.
Look at cell phones. They used to cost a fortune for just the basics. Now you can get cheap ones with a lot of features and toss in garbage after 1 use.
That means you’ll some versions like surveillance ones issued and used like ammunition. They’ll be used once and be disposed of. No need to worry about recovering them.
Makes use on every vehicle practical. Launch one, if the sensors and algorithms detect something crews are notified. 
Probably already taken place.

I liked Panzer Pajamas and watched all of his videos. The last one I can recall was a Shock Force 2 AAR- Operation Wilcox.
Does seem like his videos are gone. Too bad. Great production values.

If you think the population trends are bad for Russia they are even worse for China. A rapidly aging population and low birth rates. Even worse is China may have overstated its past and current population by a significant amount.
At the current rate you could see a population that is halved in China by 2050 if they overstated or 2100 if population wasn't overstated.
This greatly affects the size of the military, size of economy, type of economy and a whole range of other factors.

If you think the population trends are bad for Russia they are even worse for China. A rapidly aging population and low birth rates. Even worse is China may have overstated its past and current population by a significant amount.
At the current rate you could see a population that is halved in China by 2050 if they overstated or 2100 if population wasn't overstated.
This greatly affects the size of the military, size of economy, type of economy and a whole range of other factors.

Now would be a good time to train and transfer some MLRS systems to Ukraine. They would be great for counter battery fire against the Russian artillery.
If we have any HAWK batteries in storage or someone has some that could be transferred now is the time to do it.
seems like Russia will need time to reorganize and regroup after their pullback. It takes time for the Ukrainians to learn new systems and get the necessary infrastructure to support a system like the MLRS or HAWK so do it now when there is a pause.
Many European nations use good mobile anti-ship systems so now is good time to transfer to Ukraine.

Now would be a good time to train and transfer some MLRS systems to Ukraine. They would be great for counter battery fire against the Russian artillery.
If we have any HAWK batteries in storage or someone has some that could be transferred now is the time to do it.
seems like Russia will need time to reorganize and regroup after their pullback. It takes time for the Ukrainians to learn new systems and get the necessary infrastructure to support a system like the MLRS or HAWK so do it now when there is a pause.
Many European nations use good mobile anti-ship systems so now is good time to transfer to Ukraine.

'Light' and 'heavy' are fundamentally logistical terms. It refers to how many linear metres on transport aircraft and ships are needed to get the unit into theatre, and then the flow of tonnage required to keep the unit in the fight.
Not coincidentally, there is a pretty direct relationship between that and combat power, but combat power isn't what it's meant to express. A mechanised battalion with APCs, IFVs, SPGs, and tanks is going to need a shedload of ships and flights to get all the men and kit into theatre, then a shedload more every day to keep up with the prodigious demand for fuel plus heavy and bulky ammo. Meanwhile, an entire mountain or airborne battalion could be squeezed into a couple of 747s, and kept supplied with a daily herc flight or two.
There is a famous photo from when the 173rd dropped into northern Iraq of a perversely overloaded paratrooper all but crushed under his kit. Similarly the paras and marines yomping and tabbing across East Falkland carried loads that were inhumanely heavy, but /logistically/ all those forces are considered to be 'light.' In fact, that /why/ those particular forces were used in those places.
 
Edit now I'm not on my phone ...
Ironically, for the actual soldiers - rather than the logisticians - 'heavy' forces tend to routinely carry less directly on their bodies since they always have a mechanical mule (truck, track, etc) with them, whereas 'light' forces have to literally carry all their stuff with them everywhere they go.
173rd:

Marine commandos:

Paras:

The events in Ukraine are going to add some more fuel to the fire regarding the highly controversial reorganization of the US Marine Corps. The current commandant has eliminated all tanks, reduced artillery, helicopters and fixed wing assets to focus on guided missiles, drones, long range anti-ship missiles batteries and long-range unmanned surface vessels that has sensors and weapons that allow for pinpoint bombardment. They are also buying unmanned boats loaded with Kamikaze drones.
The reason for the re-org is the likely adversary China is a Pacific oriented theater that involves vast distances and the need for light highly deployable forces. Many of the potential hot spots are small atolls and shoals. Tanks are too cumbersome and heavy to land on these atolls and the risk of losing them to handheld anti-tank weapons is too great is the argument.
Artillery is also limited by the fact many of the tiny islands are so small they can't be used from a safe distance away from enemy fire and may not be able to use indirect fire at close range. While not totally useless its argued that tanks and artillery "are of less value than the things we need the most" and with a limited budget choices have to be made.
   
This has drawn the ire of just about every past commandant and they have been engaging in a PR campaign to slow or stop the re-org and are now lobbying congress. The argument here is the force structure is too tailored for a potential fight with China and would be ineffective elsewhere. There have been arguments that eliminating tanks makes the new force structure vulnerable in a fight with a armored heavy opponent.
The events in Ukraine where light infantry armed with guided missiles are decimating tanks and IFV's, pretty much invalidates the infantry is vulnerable to armored formations even when taking into account the Russians lack of finesse.
The argument that the new force structure would not be useful in a theater like Europe is also looking sketchy. A force structure like the new Marine Corps one would be highly effective in the southern coastal region of Ukraine. Anti-ship missile batteries would make any sort of Russian amphibious invasion or ship resupply of land forces a very risky proposition. Long range unmanned surface vessels with precision guns and guided missiles and drones would also be very effective.
Norway another area the marines currently train in would be another region where the new force structure would be very effective as would Sweden and Finland if it ever came down to it.
I still believe tanks are highly effective when properly used, but they are expensive to acquire, expensive to maintain and they will definitely need APS and more APS systems need to be developed. All of this will require money, lots of it and they are not easily deployable as their weight is already approaching the limits of practicality and adding on more stuff to protect them will only add to the weight problem.
In the past few decades global populations have been trending away from rural areas into urban areas. Over 90% of global commerce moves on the sea, so it follows that urban areas located near the water is where the centers of government and economic power lie.
A light infantry centric force with precision weapons, drones, unmanned surface vessels and anti-ship missiles makes a lot of sense. He may be highly controversial but General Berger is beginning to look very visionary.
 

The events in Ukraine are going to add some more fuel to the fire regarding the highly controversial reorganization of the US Marine Corps. The current commandant has eliminated all tanks, reduced artillery, helicopters and fixed wing assets to focus on guided missiles, drones, long range anti-ship missiles batteries and long-range unmanned surface vessels that has sensors and weapons that allow for pinpoint bombardment. They are also buying unmanned boats loaded with Kamikaze drones.
The reason for the re-org is the likely adversary China is a Pacific oriented theater that involves vast distances and the need for light highly deployable forces. Many of the potential hot spots are small atolls and shoals. Tanks are too cumbersome and heavy to land on these atolls and the risk of losing them to handheld anti-tank weapons is too great is the argument.
Artillery is also limited by the fact many of the tiny islands are so small they can't be used from a safe distance away from enemy fire and may not be able to use indirect fire at close range. While not totally useless its argued that tanks and artillery "are of less value than the things we need the most" and with a limited budget choices have to be made.
   
This has drawn the ire of just about every past commandant and they have been engaging in a PR campaign to slow or stop the re-org and are now lobbying congress. The argument here is the force structure is too tailored for a potential fight with China and would be ineffective elsewhere. There have been arguments that eliminating tanks makes the new force structure vulnerable in a fight with a armored heavy opponent.
The events in Ukraine where light infantry armed with guided missiles are decimating tanks and IFV's, pretty much invalidates the infantry is vulnerable to armored formations even when taking into account the Russians lack of finesse.
The argument that the new force structure would not be useful in a theater like Europe is also looking sketchy. A force structure like the new Marine Corps one would be highly effective in the southern coastal region of Ukraine. Anti-ship missile batteries would make any sort of Russian amphibious invasion or ship resupply of land forces a very risky proposition. Long range unmanned surface vessels with precision guns and guided missiles and drones would also be very effective.
Norway another area the marines currently train in would be another region where the new force structure would be very effective as would Sweden and Finland if it ever came down to it.
I still believe tanks are highly effective when properly used, but they are expensive to acquire, expensive to maintain and they will definitely need APS and more APS systems need to be developed. All of this will require money, lots of it and they are not easily deployable as their weight is already approaching the limits of practicality and adding on more stuff to protect them will only add to the weight problem.
In the past few decades global populations have been trending away from rural areas into urban areas. Over 90% of global commerce moves on the sea, so it follows that urban areas located near the water is where the centers of government and economic power lie.
A light infantry centric force with precision weapons, drones, unmanned surface vessels and anti-ship missiles makes a lot of sense. He may be highly controversial but General Berger is beginning to look very visionary.
 

The events in Ukraine are going to add some more fuel to the fire regarding the highly controversial reorganization of the US Marine Corps. The current commandant has eliminated all tanks, reduced artillery, helicopters and fixed wing assets to focus on guided missiles, drones, long range anti-ship missiles batteries and long-range unmanned surface vessels that has sensors and weapons that allow for pinpoint bombardment. They are also buying unmanned boats loaded with Kamikaze drones.
The reason for the re-org is the likely adversary China is a Pacific oriented theater that involves vast distances and the need for light highly deployable forces. Many of the potential hot spots are small atolls and shoals. Tanks are too cumbersome and heavy to land on these atolls and the risk of losing them to handheld anti-tank weapons is too great is the argument.
Artillery is also limited by the fact many of the tiny islands are so small they can't be used from a safe distance away from enemy fire and may not be able to use indirect fire at close range. While not totally useless its argued that tanks and artillery "are of less value than the things we need the most" and with a limited budget choices have to be made.
   
This has drawn the ire of just about every past commandant and they have been engaging in a PR campaign to slow or stop the re-org and are now lobbying congress. The argument here is the force structure is too tailored for a potential fight with China and would be ineffective elsewhere. There have been arguments that eliminating tanks makes the new force structure vulnerable in a fight with a armored heavy opponent.
The events in Ukraine where light infantry armed with guided missiles are decimating tanks and IFV's, pretty much invalidates the infantry is vulnerable to armored formations even when taking into account the Russians lack of finesse.
The argument that the new force structure would not be useful in a theater like Europe is also looking sketchy. A force structure like the new Marine Corps one would be highly effective in the southern coastal region of Ukraine. Anti-ship missile batteries would make any sort of Russian amphibious invasion or ship resupply of land forces a very risky proposition. Long range unmanned surface vessels with precision guns and guided missiles and drones would also be very effective.
Norway another area the marines currently train in would be another region where the new force structure would be very effective as would Sweden and Finland if it ever came down to it.
I still believe tanks are highly effective when properly used, but they are expensive to acquire, expensive to maintain and they will definitely need APS and more APS systems need to be developed. All of this will require money, lots of it and they are not easily deployable as their weight is already approaching the limits of practicality and adding on more stuff to protect them will only add to the weight problem.
In the past few decades global populations have been trending away from rural areas into urban areas. Over 90% of global commerce moves on the sea, so it follows that urban areas located near the water is where the centers of government and economic power lie.
A light infantry centric force with precision weapons, drones, unmanned surface vessels and anti-ship missiles makes a lot of sense. He may be highly controversial but General Berger is beginning to look very visionary.