Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Amperzand]

I would also say there's an important difference between modern soldiers and WW1/40k conscripts. Sure, we need infantry, but we use several thousand of them for a given operation, not tens or hundreds of thousands. Modern infantry and mass-infantry are two very different things.

[Amperzand]

Also true and important. 2060 is not the same discussion as 3060.

[Parsely]

I would also say there's an important difference between modern soldiers and WW1/40k conscripts. Sure, we need infantry, but we use several thousand of them for a given operation, not tens or hundreds of thousands. Modern infantry and mass-infantry are two very different things.

There are a lot of misconceptions about the fighting in WW1. Men didn't march shoulder-to-shoulder into machine gun fire. This is largely a myth, partially perpetuated by bad movies. I recommend the this podcast hosted by real historians to give you a stronger idea of how much truth there is to the popular idea of what WW1 was like.

[Amperzand]

I've actually been researching the history of WW1 a lot lately. I'm certainly aware nobody was that insane, but they definitely used larger numbers of less skilled soldiers with worse weapons and worse tactics.

[mainiac]

4 million is the pricetag, not operational lifetime costs, which is what the figure of 2 million is for the soldier.

Nonononono.  2 million is the healthcare cost of a casaulty.  Operational lifetime costs are much higher.  I'm just saying that it's not cheaper to risk a soldier already on the ground then a drone.  Keeping a soldier completely off the battlefield is a different savings altogether.

I'm not doing a holistic analysis here.  I'm just saying that risking lives instead of drones is not a way to save money.

[GiglameshDespair]

That's what the last line is for. We still need troops to hold an area. Which, as you said, includes fighting. Though honestly this would be a hugely onesided battle if you don't want to destroy the area - enemy gets to use bombers, turrets, and missiles, you get soldiers.

Anyway, we're talking future. In the future, I'd say costs would be less of a concern (just with the more commonality). I don't care if drones are expensive, if they can replace infantry for targeting then that's fine.

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

And infantry are vulnerable to enemy sentry's, automatic fire, enemy infantry, and heavy support. Difference? A dead drone isn't a dead human.

My point there was that drones have fundamental weaknesses that must be covered with ground forces. You can't just say "well infantry can be shot" and everyone will go "oh I guess we don't need them then."
You're also still comparing infantry against a combined force, when any war between major nations is a combined force against a combined force.
Do not consider drone strikes against Pakistani militants and/or children a good example of the usage of drones in a shooting war.
It's all very well saying you don't care about the cost, but it is something that must be considered. As drones get more advanced, their cost also rises, as does the cost of their weaponry. The average cost of a hellfire missile is $99,600. A nation can only afford so many munitions. If that hundred thousand dollar missile has to be used against one of your infantryman rather than your own drone (note that hellfire missiles are AtG, it's a metaphor) then you have lost a significantly smaller proportion of your forces.

What do you mean by 'turrets' and 'sentries'? You do realise this isn't team fortress 2, right?
I... also cannot comprehend the implication that infantry are obsolete for the most part because they are vulnerable to infantry. If you want to fight infantry with infantry, by base logic you need infantry. If you are fighting their ground forces with your own, you are not just using them for occupation.

Both drones and airstrikes were used in the Gulf War; ships utilised both missile strikes and gun bombardments. It was all the modern weapons of the era deployed. By this logic, there wouldn't be much use for ground troops, right? Well, no. Armoured and ground divisions were still the deciding factor. They didn't just occupy territory - they took it. The wars in the middle east, such as the Syrian conflict, continue despite airstrikes - the bulk of the fighting is done by ground forces. Both are modern examples of war.

Future development of more reliable ways of AA - such as lasers - will only increase the need for effective ground forces over airborne force projection.

[Parsely]

I've actually been researching the history of WW1 a lot lately. I'm certainly aware nobody was that insane, but they definitely used larger numbers of less skilled soldiers with worse weapons and worse tactics.

Of course they had worse weapons compared to now. That war happened a hundred years ago. At the time they were armed with state of the art technology and learning a new way to fight wars. The same thing is going to happen again when first world militaries finally slam into each other head first once more. The doctrine will evolve to suit new ideas and advancements.

Right now the American military has been heavily downsized to cut costs but it should go without saying that their numbers would swell again if World War 3 starts up. If you need lots and lots of people right now to fight a war that could, unlike the more recent conflicts, actually cost you your homeland, chances are you might sacrifice some professionalism and time training in order to get those troops into action.

Edit: Here's a good example of what I'm talking about with the sacrifice of education for manpower in time of war. In 1944 the US turned 110,000 Army college students into combat NCOs in order to bolster their line infantry.

[Amperzand]

My point was that we use so many force multipliers that just throwing a hundred thousand people at it no longer works, so we use smaller, more effective groups. Not necessarily single squads or whatever action movie BS, but thousands or tens of thousands rather than millions. If somebody tried using true mass-infantry against a major power, they'd just break out tech from the fifties and neutron bomb them to nothing.

I'm not arguing against infantry near term, but past a certain point, numbers alone are no longer meaningful.

[Parsely]

My point was that we use so many force multipliers that just throwing a hundred thousand people at it no longer works, so we use smaller, more effective groups. Not necessarily single squads or whatever action movie BS, but thousands or tens of thousands rather than millions. If somebody tried using true mass-infantry against a major power, they'd just break out tech from the fifties and neutron bomb them to nothing.

I'm not arguing against infantry near term, but past a certain point, numbers alone are no longer meaningful.

The thing is, we would still use numbers like this in a big war, they would just be spread out over a much larger area because the size of the battlefield has increased due to the high level of individual accuracy and rate of fire today, specifically in order to preclude your forces being destroyed by weapons that can cause a lot of destruction in a small area like laser-guided bombs and gunships. This is why nearly all infantry today is mechanized, because modern fighting requires a lot of mobility. Force multipliers do not mean it is not extremely desirable to have overwhelming numbers to win a war. You can make up for it in other ways, but if the enemy outnumbers you ten to one, expect to have a bad time. Technology and application of tactics being equal, whoever has more people on the field is going to win, because he can use his numbers to be more flexible than you by being in more places, or at least in the same places but with greater force. In fact in a hypothetical World War 3 that happened tomorrow with a similar number of participants (by nation) as the last one, you might need even more manpower than have ever used before in a war, because there are more than three times as many people on Earth today as there were back then.

[Amperzand]

The thing is, we would still use numbers like this in a big war, they would just be spread out over a much larger area because the size of the battlefield has increased due to the high level of individual accuracy and rate of fire today, specifically in order to preclude your forces being destroyed by weapons that can cause a lot of destruction in a small area like laser-guided bombs and gunships. This is why nearly all infantry today is mechanized, because modern fighting requires a lot of mobility. Force multipliers do not mean it is not extremely desirable to have overwhelming numbers to win a war. You can make up for it in other ways, but if the enemy outnumbers you ten to one, expect to have a bad time. Technology and application of tactics being equal, whoever has more people on the field is going to win, because he can use his numbers to be more flexible than you by being in more places, or at least in the same places but with greater force. In fact in a hypothetical World War 3 that happened tomorrow with a similar number of participants (by nation) as the last one, you might need even more manpower than have ever used before in a war, because there are more than three times as many people on Earth today as there were back then.

Very true. I was discussing numbers alone. Three million bakers' sons with rifles and hats are no longer useful, since an enemy with proper equipment could field assets they are legitimately incapable of disabling.

Numbers of equally effective soldiers, yes indeed. I do not contest that, only that without reasonable technological equity, they are far less useful than their lives are worth.

[Tack]

Well what would happen in a large scale war is:

One side would get air superiority- the other side would have their HQ destroyed|
To prevent that, they'd have to have a non-readily-discernable base.
Ergo, guerrilla warfare.

I say we take this discussion to the Armchair General thread and really pull it to pieces there.
This thread has too much potential.

[iceball3]

Big problem with figuring a really big war breaking out all of a sudden is everyone is forgetting the big thing that's currently kinda dissuading that: nuclear weapons.
If a side with enough of an armament feels like they're close to losing, or close to getting nuclearly disarmed, they are gonna fire their weapons at everything, and it's gonna be a big mess.

[Amperzand]

Exactly.

And yes, the infantry discussion should move, let's keep this thread to weapons.

On that topic, anybody have opinions on standard small-arms?

[Parsely]

On that topic, anybody have opinions on standard small-arms?

I have lots of opinions. Depends what you mean by "standard" small arms and in what context. I'm assuming you mean gunpowder weapons that throw usually inert projectiles made of metal. I think they're magnificent and will continue to evolve and probably won't be replaced for a long long time.

[GiglameshDespair]

My point was that we use so many force multipliers that just throwing a hundred thousand people at it no longer works, so we use smaller, more effective groups. Not necessarily single squads or whatever action movie BS, but thousands or tens of thousands rather than millions. If somebody tried using true mass-infantry against a major power, they'd just break out tech from the fifties and neutron bomb them to nothing.

I'm not arguing against infantry near term, but past a certain point, numbers alone are no longer meaningful.

Weapons of mass destruction make any other form of weaponry pretty much obsolete, so there's not a huge amount of point bringing them into it, to be honest. You could say the same if they tried using anything that they could nuke them to death.

Future development of more reliable ways of AA - such as lasers - will only increase the need for effective ground forces over airborne force projection.

The same tech will allow gun emplacements to slice through infantry just as well. Though I see your point - you can't hit something with a missile if they shoot it down (or use drones/planes if they're shot down, too).

Lasers are strictly line of sight by their very nature - aircraft and missiles have very little defence against that, being high up. Similarly, better software and hardware for missile interception will also shift the game. Previously there hasn't been much defence against missiles, which is why aircraft became so useful at extending force.
Improved AA missiles are almost certainly exclusively AA, so improved systems like the Israeli Iron Dome

Troops and ground forces can be hidden by the terrain, and radar isn't effective at finding them. Therefore, you've got to rely on more primitive technology like vision - your eye in the sky has been shot down. In a major war it's likely that they've also shot down spy and communication satellites (which is also incidentally one reason why rods-from-god aren't a viable weapons system).
You'll need ground forces.

Exactly.

And yes, the infantry discussion should move, let's keep this thread to weapons.

On that topic, anybody have opinions on standard small-arms?

A well-made gun is a thing of beauty.