Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 91

Author Topic: Theoretical weapons (Burn all the things!) and other ideas  (Read 102487 times)

Sheb

  • Bay Watcher
  • You Are An Avatar
    • View Profile
Re: Theoretical weapons (sciencey people halp)
« Reply #195 on: March 02, 2016, 11:46:34 am »

Every time someone says "infantry are on the way out" a puppy dies.

Could we weaponize that?
Logged

Quote from: Paul-Henry Spaak
Europe consists only of small countries, some of which know it and some of which don’t yet.

Parsely

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
    • My games!
Re: Theoretical weapons (sciencey people halp)
« Reply #196 on: March 02, 2016, 11:55:16 am »

Every time someone says "infantry are on the way out" a puppy dies.
Could we weaponize that?
In the war against the werewolves it would be highly effective.
Logged

i2amroy

  • Bay Watcher
  • Cats, ruling the world one dwarf at a time
    • View Profile
Re: Theoretical weapons (sciencey people halp)
« Reply #197 on: March 02, 2016, 11:59:59 am »

Every time someone says "infantry are on the way out" a puppy dies.
Could we weaponize that?
In the war against the werewolves it would be highly effective.
Of course we might need to exterminate all other species' puppies first to ensure that the targets were narrowed to those of our enemies. :P
Logged
Quote from: PTTG
It would be brutally difficult and probably won't work. In other words, it's absolutely dwarven!
Cataclysm: Dark Days Ahead - A fun zombie survival rougelike that I'm dev-ing for.

Tack

  • Bay Watcher
  • Giving nothing to a community who gave me so much.
    • View Profile
Re: Theoretical weapons (sciencey people halp)
« Reply #198 on: March 02, 2016, 12:16:01 pm »

Every time someone says "infantry are on the way out" a puppy dies.
You kidding? It's the age of special forces.
As soon as we figure out the legality surrounding this 'gene' thing, we're gonna have bunches of CIA supersoldiers doing black ops.
Infantry ARE on the way out, and it's gonna be AWESOEM.
Logged
Sentience, Endurance, and Thumbs: The Trifector of a Superpredator.
Yeah, he's a banned spammer. Normally we'd delete this thread too, but people were having too much fun with it by the time we got here.

Parsely

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
    • My games!
Re: Theoretical weapons (sciencey people halp)
« Reply #199 on: March 02, 2016, 12:42:51 pm »

Every time someone says "infantry are on the way out" a puppy dies.
You kidding? It's the age of special forces.
As soon as we figure out the legality surrounding this 'gene' thing, we're gonna have bunches of CIA supersoldiers doing black ops.
Infantry ARE on the way out, and it's gonna be AWESOEM.
No, I'm not. "Black ops", though they excite the hearts of civilians, do not win wars. Lots and lots of riflemen with good training, motivation, and lots of support from tanks, planes, and ships do. There isn't a single large scale war that did not involve mostly infantry fighting other infantry, and there is a very good reason for that. Everything else: cavalry, missile artillery, attack helicopters, battleships, and unmanned aerial vehicles have been evolved for one reason: to support the infantryman. As for the people who think wars are won with bombs, every single one of them is wrong, wrong, wrong. Your aircraft cannot operate if there aren't men on the ground finding targets for them. Aerial recon is expensive and no substitute for an infantry spotter, who is more survivable in a lot of ways than an aircraft. Aircraft can't screen the enemy's line of advance to stop them from taking ground. Aircraft can't search structures and clear a built up area. Sure they can level one, but how can you when the enemy's AAA and SAMs are still up? After all, you gave up your infantry, the guys who would normally do that job, because they were "obsolete".

Excuse me, but if you think that you can win a war without a large force of regular infantry, you simply do not know how wars are fought.
Logged

Sheb

  • Bay Watcher
  • You Are An Avatar
    • View Profile
Re: Theoretical weapons (sciencey people halp)
« Reply #200 on: March 02, 2016, 12:45:10 pm »

Well, large scale wars are on the way out...
Logged

Quote from: Paul-Henry Spaak
Europe consists only of small countries, some of which know it and some of which don’t yet.

Tack

  • Bay Watcher
  • Giving nothing to a community who gave me so much.
    • View Profile
Re: Theoretical weapons (sciencey people halp)
« Reply #201 on: March 02, 2016, 12:47:03 pm »

It's the same progression downwards which has been happening through the ages.
Massed infantry was ruined by the invention of automatic weapons. Now, with the invention of all manner of battlefield controls available to us, any infantry that are even known about can be easily cleared out.

Face it, one squad of SAS with full "missile artillery, attack helicopters, battleships, and unmanned aerial vehicles" support will wipe the floor with as large of a standing army as could be called in.
Infantry still have their place, but their place is to be the man with the laser light, marking targets for everyone else.


The only thing 'large force of regular infantry' is doing in Afghanistan is cop-work.
Logged
Sentience, Endurance, and Thumbs: The Trifector of a Superpredator.
Yeah, he's a banned spammer. Normally we'd delete this thread too, but people were having too much fun with it by the time we got here.

Bumber

  • Bay Watcher
  • REMOVE KOBOLD
    • View Profile
Re: Theoretical weapons (sciencey people halp)
« Reply #202 on: March 02, 2016, 12:53:08 pm »

War has changed.
Logged
Reading his name would trigger it. Thinking of him would trigger it. No other circumstances would trigger it- it was strictly related to the concept of Bill Clinton entering the conscious mind.

THE xTROLL FUR SOCKx RUSE WAS A........... DISTACTION        the carp HAVE the wagon

A wizard has turned you into a wagon. This was inevitable (Y/y)?

NullForceOmega

  • Bay Watcher
  • But, really, it's divine. Divinely tiresome.
    • View Profile
Re: Theoretical weapons (sciencey people halp)
« Reply #203 on: March 02, 2016, 12:55:21 pm »

Well, large scale wars are on the way out...

Sorry, but this is flat-out a fantasy.  The world is in constant flux, our current situation is temporary, eventually large-scale conflicts WILL return.
Logged
Grey morality is for people who wish to avoid retribution for misdeeds.

NullForceOmega is an immortal neanderthal who has been an amnesiac for the past 5000 years.

Parsely

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
    • My games!
Re: Theoretical weapons (sciencey people halp)
« Reply #204 on: March 02, 2016, 01:05:54 pm »

Well, large scale wars are on the way out...
What makes you say that? It's been more than a decade since the last one, but I would say it's only a matter of time until there's another war with a 1,000,000+ body count. Does the recent civil war in Syria that's lasted for about 5 years not count as a recent, large scale war? How many people need to die until it counts as a "large" war?

It's the same progression downwards which has been happening through the ages.
Massed infantry was ruined by the invention of automatic weapons. Now, with the invention of all manner of battlefield controls available to us, any infantry that are even known about can be easily cleared out.

Face it, one squad of SAS with full "missile artillery, attack helicopters, battleships, and unmanned aerial vehicles" support will wipe the floor with as large of a standing army as could be called in.
Infantry still have their place, but their place is to be the man with the laser light, marking targets for everyone else.

The only thing 'large force of regular infantry' is doing in Afghanistan is cop-work.
There are counters for all of those controls you mention. And infantry no longer march in closed formation, but nonetheless their numbers remain quite large. Automatic weapons are force multipliers, they are not direct substitutes for manpower. Battlefields are much, MUCH larger than they were in the past, so you still need all of those people to cover all that extra ground.

You could not be more wrong. It is impossible for...I don't even know the order of battle for the SAS, but let's just assume a squad is 12 guys. It is utterly impossible for 12 men, regardless of who they are, to win any kind of war no matter how many bombs and gunships they have behind them. You've been watching too many Hollywood movies.

You're not wrong, but the war in Afghanistan is not being waged against a conventional force, and as such should not be used as a yardstick to measure how every future conflict involving the US Army will turn out. There hasn't yet been a war where all the recent modern firepower of first world nations have faced off against one another, but men train for it every day, and when that day comes, there will be a great need for the scores of riflemen and their ability to be in a lot of places at once. I'm not saying that there is no place for special forces in war, but there is no such thing as an entire army composed of elite forces.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2016, 01:12:57 pm by GUNINANRUNIN »
Logged

NullForceOmega

  • Bay Watcher
  • But, really, it's divine. Divinely tiresome.
    • View Profile
Re: Theoretical weapons (sciencey people halp)
« Reply #205 on: March 02, 2016, 02:26:20 pm »

And each drone costs more to build, maintain, and operate as an entire squad of infantry, requires more downtime per hour of operation, and is a vastly higher-priority target.
Logged
Grey morality is for people who wish to avoid retribution for misdeeds.

NullForceOmega is an immortal neanderthal who has been an amnesiac for the past 5000 years.

mainiac

  • Bay Watcher
  • Na vazeal kwah-kai
    • View Profile
Re: Theoretical weapons (sciencey people halp)
« Reply #206 on: March 02, 2016, 02:37:36 pm »

A predator drone costs 4 million.  This source says that an injured soldier costs 2 million dollars on average: http://www.businessinsider.com/it-will-cost-2-million-for-each-injured-us-soldier-from-iraq-and-afghanistan-2013-5
This is in addition to the costs of recruiting, training and supplying a soldier.  The cost just of Iraq war operations (so ignoring training for instance but including combat pay and equipment) was close to a trillion dollars.  The cost of long term healthcare operations for soldier who weren't wounded is going to be several trillion dollars in the decades to come.

So no, soldiers are not cheaper then drones.
Logged
Ancient Babylonian god of RAEG
--------------
[CAN_INTERNET]
[PREFSTRING:google]
"Don't tell me what you value. Show me your budget and I will tell you what you value"
« Last Edit: February 10, 1988, 03:27:23 pm by UR MOM »
mainiac is always a little sarcastic, at least.

NullForceOmega

  • Bay Watcher
  • But, really, it's divine. Divinely tiresome.
    • View Profile
Re: Theoretical weapons (sciencey people halp)
« Reply #207 on: March 02, 2016, 02:39:14 pm »

4 million is the pricetag, not operational lifetime costs, which is what the figure of 2 million is for the soldier.
Logged
Grey morality is for people who wish to avoid retribution for misdeeds.

NullForceOmega is an immortal neanderthal who has been an amnesiac for the past 5000 years.

GiglameshDespair

  • Bay Watcher
  • Beware! Once I have posted, your thread is doomed!
    • View Profile
Re: Theoretical weapons (sciencey people halp)
« Reply #208 on: March 02, 2016, 02:52:32 pm »

Drones are also vulnerable to enemy aircraft, AA, jamming and hacking.

Do not confuse drones blowing up Pakistani militants and/or children as a good demonstration of the use of drones against a military.

A predator drone costs 4 million.  This source says that an injured soldier costs 2 million dollars on average: http://www.businessinsider.com/it-will-cost-2-million-for-each-injured-us-soldier-from-iraq-and-afghanistan-2013-5
This is in addition to the costs of recruiting, training and supplying a soldier.  The cost just of Iraq war operations (so ignoring training for instance but including combat pay and equipment) was close to a trillion dollars.  The cost of long term healthcare operations for soldier who weren't wounded is going to be several trillion dollars in the decades to come.

So no, soldiers are not cheaper then drones.
How on Earth does measuring the purchase cost of a Predator provide a fair analysis against the long term costs of a soldier?

And which kind of Predator? The flyaway costs for MQ-1 are around $4mill, but the flyaway of a MQ-9 is $16.9 mill. Again, flyaway prices, not operational lifetime costs.
Logged
Old and cringe account. Disregard.

Parsely

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
    • My games!
Re: Theoretical weapons (sciencey people halp)
« Reply #209 on: March 02, 2016, 03:04:25 pm »

And each drone costs more to build, maintain, and operate as an entire squad of infantry, requires more downtime per hour of operation, and is a vastly higher-priority target.
Nah. A Global Hawk surveillance craft costs 227 million dollars today. Here is a 2014 presentation by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments regarding defense costs. The particular slide I linked to shows that the majority of costs requested (the slide shows a procurement request not actual spending) comes from the field of aircraft (approx. 33 billion dollars requested in 2014). Here's a PDF of the slides from that presentation.

And before you get excited, if you watch the video, you will see that a soldier does indeed cost much more than his equipment because of benefits programs (military personnel cost more than 200b dollars total in 2014), but the equipment is only valuable when used in combination with the infantryman. The infantryman is not a missile. He can be used to kill the enemy, taught to fix things, fly aircraft, build defenses. We would not spend this much money on infantry if the man's years long career was not worth the cost.

How on Earth does measuring the purchase cost of a Predator provide a fair analysis against the long term costs of a soldier?
Indeed. Not only that, but I don't think people are fairly considering how USEFUL a person is!

Dude. We already have drones. Please.

They may not be as, dare I say it, expendable as infantry, but they are better armed, more survivable, faster, and do not need feeding.

The real use for infantry is occupation. The other possible uses are breaching, and that's only if you've not enough equipment.
They're not better armed so much as differently armed. A Predator can fly out, perform a strike mission, then it needs to return and rearm. This takes hours. Infantry with their support vehicles can at the same time advance and remain in place to deter an advance. Drones just can't do that. You talk about "occupation" like it doesn't involve fighting. It is not a simple task, and one that is impossible for aircraft or artillery to do alone.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2016, 03:19:55 pm by GUNINANRUNIN »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 91