Military Fanboiism in relation to military equipment

[Oozlefinch]

I would like to address something that I am finding all to frustrating when dealing with military equipment in these forums. And that is the high degree of "Fanboiism" in some of the threads here.

So to try and make a comparison, I am going to use automobiles to try and make a clear comparison.

Now if you are going to by a car and are deciding between 3 main General Motors brands, this can be seen clearly. You have the Cadillac, seen to be the "top of the line" when it comes to their cars. Deluxe everything, it can wipe your nose if you have a cold as you drive down the road at 100 miles an hour and had features you will never use. This is the top tier brand, and the ultimate car in the series.

Then below that you have the Buick. Still a fine car, with a lot of luxury features. But it is not as high as the Cadillac. It could be, but that is simply not how it is designed or marketed.

Then finally you have the Chevy. Still a well made car, but with none of the features available in the Cadillac or Buick. Some may be available as extras for an extra cost, but put in enough of them and you might as well get the more base model of the higher tier car.

When it comes to arms for example, the US is generally considered the Cadillac of the arms business. It makes the best out there in most items, and many things that no other country makes. Yes it costs a lot more and takes longer to get to market, but when it is made it is generally considered the "best of the best".

The Soviet-Russian industry was generally considered the Buick of the international arms trade. Good equipment, durable, easy to work with. Not as good as the Cadillac, but cost effective so it often makes more sense to go that route. Especially if you can afford 3 of them for every 1.5 to 2 of the US version of the same thing.

China, they are generally regarded as the Chevy of the army industry. Good, workmanship quality, but not up to par with the Buick or Cadillac. But if your budget is lower it is still a fine product, and many times a much better deal to buy a new Chevy instead of a used Buick or Cadillac.

Of course, you then have ones that are even lower. Iran might be seen as the Yugo. Their stuff is even more basic, and has little to none of the bells and whistles of the GM models. But that does not mean they do not work, they have been a major provider of components to Hamas in the making of their Katyusha rockets.

Now the Katyusha is really a crude rocket, little changed since the Soviets used them in WWII. No guidance, no precision at all, just aim and fire. Anything it hits is good. Basically like firing a Yugo at your target.

But guess what? Hit a house with a $5,000 Katyusha rocket or a $1,200,000 Tomahawk missile and the house is still destroyed.

So many in here do not look at the equipment we discuss simply as military equipment, but as a form of Nationalistic Pride, insisting that their equipment is the best in the world. They will prattle on endlessly on why their stuff is the best, and nothing anybody ever makes will ever defeat it. Myself, I find such wanger waving boring and silly. If you want to discuss why Tank A might be better then Tank B, that is fine. If you want to talk about why Fighter X is better then Fighter Y because the nation that uses it has better tactics and doctrine, that is fine.

But if you want to go on about how Combat Helmet K is better then Combat Helmet L simply because it is made by Nation I which is the most advanced country to ever exist, then I only want to say STFU because that has not a damned thing to do with the equipment itself.

And I am sure a great many others in here share the opinion with myself that we really do not want to hear about how Cargo Plane F should be destroyed because it is taking polio medicine away from children and letting dogs starve when they should be enrolled in a Canine Foodstamp program. That really has not a damned thing to do with the military at all, it is a political comment that really belongs in the political section.

I really hate people who come in all fanboi crazy and scream about how all of the equipment their patron nation makes is the best, while blind to anything else that might mean it is not the best (or the best in all situations). It is even more frustrating when somebody will tell them "Yes, it is good for APPLICATION A, but has issues in APPLICATION B" and then respond as if it was a complete and total attack upon their equipment, country of origin, and themselves. Shows how little objectivity some people in here really have.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

I would like to address something that I am finding all to frustrating when dealing with military equipment in these forums. And that is the high degree of "Fanboiism" in some of the threads here.

So to try and make a comparison, I am going to use automobiles to try and make a clear comparison.

Now if you are going to by a car and are deciding between 3 main General Motors brands, this can be seen clearly. You have the Cadillac, seen to be the "top of the line" when it comes to their cars. Deluxe everything, it can wipe your nose if you have a cold as you drive down the road at 100 miles an hour and had features you will never use. This is the top tier brand, and the ultimate car in the series.

Then below that you have the Buick. Still a fine car, with a lot of luxury features. But it is not as high as the Cadillac. It could be, but that is simply not how it is designed or marketed.

Then finally you have the Chevy. Still a well made car, but with none of the features available in the Cadillac or Buick. Some may be available as extras for an extra cost, but put in enough of them and you might as well get the more base model of the higher tier car.

When it comes to arms for example, the US is generally considered the Cadillac of the arms business. It makes the best out there in most items, and many things that no other country makes. Yes it costs a lot more and takes longer to get to market, but when it is made it is generally considered the "best of the best".

The Soviet-Russian industry was generally considered the Buick of the international arms trade. Good equipment, durable, easy to work with. Not as good as the Cadillac, but cost effective so it often makes more sense to go that route. Especially if you can afford 3 of them for every 1.5 to 2 of the US version of the same thing.

China, they are generally regarded as the Chevy of the army industry. Good, workmanship quality, but not up to par with the Buick or Cadillac. But if your budget is lower it is still a fine product, and many times a much better deal to buy a new Chevy instead of a used Buick or Cadillac.

Of course, you then have ones that are even lower. Iran might be seen as the Yugo. Their stuff is even more basic, and has little to none of the bells and whistles of the GM models. But that does not mean they do not work, they have been a major provider of components to Hamas in the making of their Katyusha rockets.

Now the Katyusha is really a crude rocket, little changed since the Soviets used them in WWII. No guidance, no precision at all, just aim and fire. Anything it hits is good. Basically like firing a Yugo at your target.

But guess what? Hit a house with a $5,000 Katyusha rocket or a $1,200,000 Tomahawk missile and the house is still destroyed.

So many in here do not look at the equipment we discuss simply as military equipment, but as a form of Nationalistic Pride, insisting that their equipment is the best in the world. They will prattle on endlessly on why their stuff is the best, and nothing anybody ever makes will ever defeat it. Myself, I find such wanger waving boring and silly. If you want to discuss why Tank A might be better then Tank B, that is fine. If you want to talk about why Fighter X is better then Fighter Y because the nation that uses it has better tactics and doctrine, that is fine.

But if you want to go on about how Combat Helmet K is better then Combat Helmet L simply because it is made by Nation I which is the most advanced country to ever exist, then I only want to say STFU because that has not a damned thing to do with the equipment itself.

And I am sure a great many others in here share the opinion with myself that we really do not want to hear about how Cargo Plane F should be destroyed because it is taking polio medicine away from children and letting dogs starve when they should be enrolled in a Canine Foodstamp program. That really has not a damned thing to do with the military at all, it is a political comment that really belongs in the political section.

I really hate people who come in all fanboi crazy and scream about how all of the equipment their patron nation makes is the best, while blind to anything else that might mean it is not the best (or the best in all situations). It is even more frustrating when somebody will tell them "Yes, it is good for APPLICATION A, but has issues in APPLICATION B" and then respond as if it was a complete and total attack upon their equipment, country of origin, and themselves. Shows how little objectivity some people in here really have.

How DARE you denigrate our all-too-crucial Canine Foodstamp program?!?!?!?

(sorry - couldn't resist)

 

[Mark F]

What is rarely considered are the requirements of the actual user.

A country with an all-volunteer military and a generally high standard of education is going to need and want different kit than a country whose military is composed say of moderately educated conscripted peasants or tribesman.

Then there are the conditions in which the equipment is expected to be used (geography and weather) and of course the nature of the potential threat - all of which can be quite different from one country to the next.

Tanks are one of the most obvious examples of this. Sure the M1A2 (for us Uh-mer-icuns) or Leopard 2A6 (for the Krauts) or the Challenger II (for the Limey's) are kick-arse and one could make a strong case for either of them being the best tank in the world. So why when Malaysia held a competition for a new tank about a decade ago were none of these invited? Because at 70 tons they don't work on the Malaysian road, bridge and rail network so they aren't the best tank for Malaysia and probably a lot of other countries too.

So the lesson is, what works best for Country X might be quite useless for Country Y or vice-versa.

 

[apdst]

Some folks believe that newer is better and more technology is better. Sometimes that true, sometimes it isn't.

In my military experience, new, advanced technology failed in situations where equipment from one, or two generations earlier would have accomplished the mission and wouldn't have failed under the stress of a field environment.

I believe that three key words should always be kept in mind when developing military equipment, especially infantry equipment, are, "simple, simple, simple". The reason being, the more things that can break, or malfunction; the more thing that will break, or malfunction.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Some folks believe that newer is better and more technology is better. Sometimes that true, sometimes it isn't.

Like in a similar thread going on here.

"Oh, battleships are obsolete! We have der missiles that shoot and blow up bad guys!"

Yea, other then we actually do not have any kind of missile that can support a direct fire mission to people on the ground. None, zilch, zippo, nada. So what good is all that "advanced technology" when you can hit a specified window in a specified building from 300 miles away, but can't blow up an anti-ship missile launcher from 20 miles away? Or that the $10,000 anti-ship missile can actually sink most of the ships in the US inventory?

 

[apdst]

Like in a similar thread going on here.

"Oh, battleships are obsolete! We have der missiles that shoot and blow up bad guys!"

Yea, other then we actually do not have any kind of missile that can support a direct fire mission to people on the ground. None, zilch, zippo, nada. So what good is all that "advanced technology" when you can hit a specified window in a specified building from 300 miles away, but can't blow up an anti-ship missile launcher from 20 miles away? Or that the $10,000 anti-ship missile can actually sink most of the ships in the US inventory?

The, "this is hi-tech, therefore it's awesome", school of thought has been dominent for some time.

 

[Oozlefinch]

The, "this is hi-tech, therefore it's awesome", school of thought has been dominent for some time.

Don't get me wrong, I love "hi tech" myself. Over 5 years with PATRIOT missile system, computer and networking tech for over 30 years.

But that does not blind me to what can still be done "old school". Like the simple fact that while systems like PHALANX and Rolling Airframe Missile are great for defeating inbound missiles, what is wrong with also using the tried and true way of actually building the hulls thicker on some of our ships? Yea, China claims it has "der aircraft carrier killer" ballistic missile. But nobody is really taking it as a real threat, because it is pretty much impossible to make and there are gigantic holes in the technology to even make it possible.

Oh, not to mention that China has this long trend of claiming to have things that never see the light of day. Best missile ever, best tank ever, best fighter jet ever, best super-powered toilet ever. But amazingly, nothing ever comes of these items, they get quietly scrapped and fade away as they then announce their next super-super swiss folding army tank.

I guess I am a "belt and suspenders" type of person. Especially when being so can mean the lives of those in uniform. Yes, have the high tech and use it when possible to prevent putting lives at risk. But you had better have other more "old school" fallbacks so when that new item fails you are not leaving our troops hanging out in the wind with their butts hanging out.

Classic example to anybody who thinks that "high tech" will triumph over "old school" in 3 simple words: Dien Bien Phu.

 

[joko104]

I would like to address something that I am finding all to frustrating when dealing with military equipment in these forums. And that is the high degree of "Fanboiism" in some of the threads here.

Now the Katyusha is really a crude rocket, little changed since the Soviets used them in WWII. No guidance, no precision at all, just aim and fire. Anything it hits is good. Basically like firing a Yugo at your target.

But guess what? Hit a house with a $5,000 Katyusha rocket or a $1,200,000 Tomahawk missile and the house is still destroyed.

But if you want to go on about how Combat Helmet K is better then Combat Helmet L simply because it is made by Nation I which is the most advanced country to ever exist, then I only want to say STFU because that has not a damned thing to do with the equipment itself.

I really hate people who come in all fanboi crazy and scream about how all of the equipment their patron nation makes is the best, while blind to anything else that might mean it is not the best (or the best in all situations). It is even more frustrating when somebody will tell them "Yes, it is good for APPLICATION A, but has issues in APPLICATION B" and then respond as if it was a complete and total attack upon their equipment, country of origin, and themselves. Shows how little objectivity some people in here really have.

The OP is the view that is the far greater adversary to a viable military even than budget slashing liberals.

Comparing the Katyusha rocket to a Tomahawk missile is as absurd a comparison as is possible. The Katyusha rocket was only a psychological weapon of extreme close quarter because the had whistles on their fins, a response to Germans doing the same. The couldn't hit anything predictably, their rockets cost more than artillery shells, and they had a slow rate of fire with a range of only 3 miles. How the hell does that compare to a Tomahawk, which can it a target thru the window of a building launched a thousand miles away.

The Katusha had a 43 pound warhead, no accuracy and has to be within 3 miles. The Tomahawk can carry a 1,000 pound warhead, can take out a ship or a building or anything else from a thousand miles away, and can carry a nuclear warhead. The Katusha is vastly inferior to a WWI 80 millimeter cannon. Even inferior to a large mortar.

"The first large-scale testing of the rocket launchers took place at the end of 1938, when 233 rounds of various types were used. A salvo of rockets could completely straddle a target at a range of 5,500 meters( 3.4 mi). But the artillery branch was not fond of the Katyusha, because it took up to 50 minutes to load and fire 24 rounds, while a conventional howitzer could fire 95 to 150 rounds in the same time.[citation needed] Testing with various rockets was conducted through 1940, and the BM-13-16 with launch rails for sixteen rockets was authorized for production. Only forty launchers were built before Germany invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941."

As for helmets? I suspect that the appropriate response to the OPer of every combat Marine and soldier for his theory that they don't need the best helmet, but only good enough, would be a loud FU! while showing him their index fingers.

 

[joko104]

What is rarely considered are the requirements of the actual user.

A country with an all-volunteer military and a generally high standard of education is going to need and want different kit than a country whose military is composed say of moderately educated conscripted peasants or tribesman.

Then there are the conditions in which the equipment is expected to be used (geography and weather) and of course the nature of the potential threat - all of which can be quite different from one country to the next.

Tanks are one of the most obvious examples of this. Sure the M1A2 (for us Uh-mer-icuns) or Leopard 2A6 (for the Krauts) or the Challenger II (for the Limey's) are kick-arse and one could make a strong case for either of them being the best tank in the world. So why when Malaysia held a competition for a new tank about a decade ago were none of these invited? Because at 70 tons they don't work on the Malaysian road, bridge and rail network so they aren't the best tank for Malaysia and probably a lot of other countries too.

So the lesson is, what works best for Country X might be quite useless for Country Y or vice-versa.

if we pretended the USA doesn't also have lightweight armored vehicles that message would make sense. You confuse biggest with the best to make your argument. That isn't accurate. The best is the best - which might mean biggest or smallest or most technically advanced, or least expense o most expensive, or... or... or...

In fact, lately it has been POLITICIANS and old military dogs pushing for heavy tanks - and the ARMY DOES NOT WANT THEM - meaning they don't want their budget spent on them. They want more lighter and more mobile armored vehicles, but the POLITICIANS and old armchair warriors are still forcing heavy tanks on the Army anyway.

Like another thread trying to push battleships on the Navy - which absolutely no Navy on earth wants to have.

 

[joko104]

Don't get me wrong, I love "hi tech" myself. Over 5 years with PATRIOT missile system, computer and networking tech for over 30 years.

But that does not blind me to what can still be done "old school". Like the simple fact that while systems like PHALANX and Rolling Airframe Missile are great for defeating inbound missiles, what is wrong with also using the tried and true way of actually building the hulls thicker on some of our ships? Yea, China claims it has "der aircraft carrier killer" ballistic missile. But nobody is really taking it as a real threat, because it is pretty much impossible to make and there are gigantic holes in the technology to even make it possible.

Oh, not to mention that China has this long trend of claiming to have things that never see the light of day. Best missile ever, best tank ever, best fighter jet ever, best super-powered toilet ever. But amazingly, nothing ever comes of these items, they get quietly scrapped and fade away as they then announce their next super-super swiss folding army tank.

I guess I am a "belt and suspenders" type of person. Especially when being so can mean the lives of those in uniform. Yes, have the high tech and use it when possible to prevent putting lives at risk. But you had better have other more "old school" fallbacks so when that new item fails you are not leaving our troops hanging out in the wind with their butts hanging out.

Classic example to anybody who thinks that "high tech" will triumph over "old school" in 3 simple words: Dien Bien Phu.

No one wants battleships. Not one Navy. Not one Navy wants to spend that percentage of their budget on 16 or 20 or 30 inch armor, requiring then massive nuclear reactors, and a ship so costly - into the tens of billions - and still so vulnerable it requires a carrier task force to protect them.

16 inch armor did not save battleships. It made them sink faster. The technology to defeat any amour on a ship has existed for 80 years. Armor the sides and missiles and torpedoes will go for the bottom. Armor the bottom - meaning the ship has to still be bigger and more power and most cost - and missiles will go for the deck.

Do the weight math of the weight steel and you will ALWAYS come to the reality it cannot be done. Maybe if you made a ship 3000 feet long and 300 feet wide at a cost of $300 billion dollars it could survive against current warheads. And then in 5 years you have to build its replacement at 6000 feet long and 600 feet wide to respond to the next warheads.

I used to think battleships were cool and why don't they just make better ones, until I stated doing weight to buoyancy calculations. Steel of armor quality weights 10 times as much as water. You have to figure the curves of the ship because it's not a box, the sides, deck and bottom. And then allow for weight of engines, guns, fuel and all the rest. You can NEVER get ahead of the curve on weight. The bigger you make the ship, the heavier it becomes.

How thick a total sides, deck and bottom hull do you think is enough? WWII levels were totally deficient. And munitions now are FAR more powerful and FAR more accurate from FAR greater ranges.

 

[joko104]

Don't get me wrong, I love "hi tech" myself. Over 5 years with PATRIOT missile system, computer and networking tech for over 30 years.

But that does not blind me to what can still be done "old school". Like the simple fact that while systems like PHALANX and Rolling Airframe Missile are great for defeating inbound missiles, what is wrong with also using the tried and true way of actually building the hulls thicker on some of our ships? Yea, China claims it has "der aircraft carrier killer" ballistic missile. But nobody is really taking it as a real threat, because it is pretty much impossible to make and there are gigantic holes in the technology to even make it possible.

Oh, not to mention that China has this long trend of claiming to have things that never see the light of day. Best missile ever, best tank ever, best fighter jet ever, best super-powered toilet ever. But amazingly, nothing ever comes of these items, they get quietly scrapped and fade away as they then announce their next super-super swiss folding army tank.

I guess I am a "belt and suspenders" type of person. Especially when being so can mean the lives of those in uniform. Yes, have the high tech and use it when possible to prevent putting lives at risk. But you had better have other more "old school" fallbacks so when that new item fails you are not leaving our troops hanging out in the wind with their butts hanging out.

Classic example to anybody who thinks that "high tech" will triumph over "old school" in 3 simple words: Dien Bien Phu.

Dien Bien Phu does NOT make your point whatsoever. It disproves it. The French were not "technologically superior." Rather, the French thought they were just automatically superior. Did the French control that air? No. Did the French have superior artillery? No. Did the French have top of the line heavy tanks? No.

Rather, the French put themselves in the bottom of a bowl in unthinkable recklessness and got obliterated. If the French had heavy air support of technologically advanced weaponry, if they had a carrier off shore with such aircraft, and if the French commander wasn't an idiot, the French would have won. The French lost because they did NOT have technological superior, most specifically in air power and carrier power. NOTHING of that battle had ANYTHING to do with high tech versus old school. The French lost because they did not have the technological superior to win when also heavily outnumbers and putting themselves into a terrible terrain situation and planning for no options. The French simply thought they couldn't be defeated because they are French.

 

[apdst]

Dien Bien Phu does NOT make your point whatsoever. It disproves it. The French were not "technologically superior." Rather, the French thought they were just automatically superior. Did the French control that air? No. Did the French have superior artillery? No. Did the French have top of the line heavy tanks? No.

Rather, the French put themselves in the bottom of a bowl in unthinkable recklessness and got obliterated. If the French had heavy air support of technologically advanced weaponry, if they had a carrier off shore with such aircraft, and if the French commander wasn't an idiot, the French would have won. The French lost because they did NOT have technological superior, most specifically in air power and carrier power. NOTHING of that battle had ANYTHING to do with high tech versus old school. The French lost because they did not have the technological superior to win when also heavily outnumbers and putting themselves into a terrible terrain situation and planning for no options. The French simply thought they couldn't be defeated because they are French.

Actually, French forces did have tanks and control of the airspace.

They lost, because they underestimated their enemy.

 

[joko104]

Like in a similar thread going on here.

"Oh, battleships are obsolete! We have der missiles that shoot and blow up bad guys!"

Yea, other then we actually do not have any kind of missile that can support a direct fire mission to people on the ground. None, zilch, zippo, nada. So what good is all that "advanced technology" when you can hit a specified window in a specified building from 300 miles away, but can't blow up an anti-ship missile launcher from 20 miles away? Or that the $10,000 anti-ship missile can actually sink most of the ships in the US inventory?

Missiles to sink battleships aren't built because there are no battleships. Rather obvious.

Of course, torpedoes sink battleships too - but let's pretend God had decreed a ban on torpedoes - and let's pretend God had decreed a ban on smart bombs too - and stick with missiles.

It would be almost infinitely easier to build a missile to sink a battleship at, oh, about 1/500,000th, the cost of building a battleship. It would simply be a larger two stage missile with a first stage that is a hyper speed torpedo from around 10 miles out to go off under the battleship. Water does not compress. With modern munitions the ship would break in half at the seams under it's own weight. And given how magnetic high density steel is, the easier target any torpedo have had to find.

In short, it would take both a carrier task force and a submarine defensive net to protect the battleship. Basically, the majority of the Navy's budget would be going to defend the battleship - which cannot do anything in regards to 99.5% of the world surface and has a battle range of 20 miles max. And you can have one of those for only about $200,000,000,000 including the cost of the support fleet at a $10,000,000,000 a year operational costs - all that for 9 cannons. :2razz:

Then you would have those unstoppable 9 cannons - provided no country decided to built the missiles to sink it. I suppose we could hope they wouldn't for some reason. Then again, if we can convince other countries not to build ways to sink our battleship, it would seem we could convince them to not sink our other ships too.

 

[joko104]

Actually, French forces did have tanks and control of the airspace.

They lost, because they underestimated their enemy.

I am aware when you dig in you stick to your story no matter what.

However, in fact:

1. The only tanks the French had were U.S. made M24 Chaffee light tanks (only 10 to be specific), not heavy state of the art tanks.

2. No, you wrong. The French had NO aircraft carrier off shore.

If you study the battle, the limited air power the French could throw into the battle were so devastatingly effective that entire units of the Vietnamese army refused to fight due to massive casualties, but the French lacked the sufficient numbers to maintain it.

They did ask the USA for air support and for the most part, not entirely, the USA refused - though we had the aircraft ready to strike immediately. Eisenhower specifically refused.

Had the French HAD SUFFICIENT air power OR had the USA put out air power into the battle, The French would not have been defeated.

This is not an obscure topic. It is the reason for decades the French refused to back up the USA and why the French were totally hostile to the USA's actions in Vietnam. We essentially allowed the French to be obliterated - watching it happen and with the aircraft, including carrier based offshore to prevent it - and refused.

When the French left, THEN we moved it. From the French' perspective we deliberately let their men be slaughtered so we could claim Vietnam for ourselves. The friendship in a military sense between the USA and France ended there. They saw - correctly - any alliance or treaty with the USA as worthless and only trickery and betrayal, which in my opinion it was. We knowingly let their army get obliterated and we could have stopped it from happening. That level of hatred this generated among the French towards the USA largely exists to this day - stemming more than anywhere else from that betrayal.

That battle is of huge historic significance primarily for that reason. For decades after, the response of France to the USA about anything of foreign policy and military situations was a furiously "FU!" and reminding of that betrayal.

The French lost due to 1.) bad tactics 2.) not allowing for eventualities and 3.) lacking the necessary high tech equipment - specifically air power to deal with overwhelmingly superior numbers have as good as, superior equipment. Oh, and #4 - making any part of your military policy and decisions in reliance upon any military alliance you have with other countries.

That battle shows what happens if you do NOT have the sufficient amount of state of the art equipment - and specifically air power. But, then I have read your messages and your view that air power is essentially irrelevant and all it takes is good infantry with rifles or something like that.

I'd ask you to read up more carefully on the battle, but I know it would make no difference.

 

[apdst]

I am aware when you dig in you stick to your story no matter what.

However, in fact:

1. The only tanks the French had were U.S. made M24 Chaffee light tanks (only 10 to be specific), not heavy state of the art tanks.

2. No, you wrong. The French had NO aircraft carrier off shore.

If you study the battle, the limited air power the French could throw into the battle were so devastatingly effective that entire units of the Vietnamese army refused to fight due to massive casualties, but the French lacked the sufficient numbers to maintain it.

They did ask the USA for air support and for the most part, not entirely, the USA refused - though we had the aircraft ready to strike immediately. Eisenhower specifically refused.

Had the French HAD SUFFICIENT air power OR had the USA put out air power into the battle, The French would not have been defeated.

This is not an obscure topic. It is the reason for decades the French refused to back up the USA and why the French were totally hostile to the USA's actions in Vietnam. We essentially allowed the French to be obliterated - watching it happen and with the aircraft, including carrier based offshore to prevent it - and refused.

When the French left, THEN we moved it. From the French' perspective we deliberately let their men be slaughtered so we could claim Vietnam for ourselves. The friendship in a military sense between the USA and France ended there. They saw - correctly - any alliance or treaty with the USA as worthless and only trickery and betrayal, which in my opinion it was. We knowingly let their army get obliterated and we could have stopped it from happening. That level of hatred this generated among the French towards the USA largely exists to this day - stemming more than anywhere else from that betrayal.

That battle is of huge historic significance primarily for that reason. For decades after, the response of France to the USA about anything of foreign policy and military situations was a furiously "FU!" and reminding of that betrayal.

The French lost due to 1.) bad tactics 2.) not allowing for eventualities and 3.) lacking the necessary high tech equipment - specifically air power to deal with overwhelmingly superior numbers have as good as, superior equipment.

That battle shows what happens if you do NOT have the sufficient amount of state of the art equipment - and specifically air power. But, then I have read your messages and your view that air power is essentially irrelevant and all it takes is good infantry with rifles or something like that.

I'd ask you to read up more carefully on the battle, but I know it would make no difference.

The Viet Minh defeated the French through superior firepower, not superior technology.

 

[Mark F]

if we pretended the USA doesn't also have lightweight armored vehicles that message would make sense. You confuse biggest with the best to make your argument. That isn't accurate. The best is the best - which might mean biggest or smallest or most technically advanced, or least expense o most expensive, or... or... or...

In fact, lately it has been POLITICIANS and old military dogs pushing for heavy tanks - and the ARMY DOES NOT WANT THEM - meaning they don't want their budget spent on them. They want more lighter and more mobile armored vehicles, but the POLITICIANS and old armchair warriors are still forcing heavy tanks on the Army anyway.

Like another thread trying to push battleships on the Navy - which absolutely no Navy on earth wants to have.

I think you missed the point. Regarding the specific example of "best tank: In interweb forum "debates", when the subject of the best tank comes up invariably the American's in the discussion will say it is the M1, the Brits will say it is the Challenger 2, etc, etc, etc,... Pure jingoistic fanboyism that ignores real world realities. Rarely does the discussion move beyond my countries most badass stuff and real world requirements of real world users are hardly ever considered. Sometimes I decide to intervene with a little practical reality - an intrusion which usually gets me treated as if I have 10 heads.

 

[jbi]

If the navy required massive fire support, they would not waste time resurrecting obsolete battleships when something like this could be built quickly and for a fraction of the cost

 

[Mark F]

Back about 15 years ago I was involved in a forum frequented by people belonging to a group actively lobbying for a return to service of the Iowa class battleships. I would get constantly regaled with exagerated tales of the battleships past exploits and be schooled in how their armor made the invincible, requiring only brooms for damage control. And let us not forget of course how the mere sight of a battleship off their shores would lead all of our enemies into instant surrender. Like all people of faith, all true believers, they could not be swayed by logic or reason and would try to rationalize and handwave away anything inconvenient to their pet cause.

Back then, before 9/11 and the subsequent War on Terror the subject of Naval Surface Fire Support was getting a lot of attention. DD-21 (what evolved into the Zumwalt class destroyer) was in the design and development stage. improvements to gun and ammunition for the extant 5-inch Mk 45 were in the works and new 155mm long range guns with guided projectiles in the works for the next generation. Improved and less expensive Tomahawk cruise missiles (TLAM), limited land attack capability added to Harpoon, proposals for vertical launched versions of the Army's Guided MLRS rocket, a navalized VLS compatible version of the ATACM missile (NTACM) and even a land attack adaptation of the Standard missile (LASM) with a 500-lb unitary or sub-munition warhead.

For the crowd preaching how "cheap" it would be to reactivate an Iowa battleship with totally unrealistic notions of how quick, simple and cheap it would be to develop magical new long-range guided projectiles for their guns and sticking VLS cells all over them wherever they thought they could find deck space I proposed instead something not far off from the image you posted above. A large, even mercantile style hull could carry many hundreds of Mk 41 VLS cells. Each of those cells could carry 1 TLAM, 2 LASM, 1 Naval ATACMS or 4 VLGMLRS. Cost of ship would be modest - a few hundred million per hull at most so comparable or better than just a simple Iowa reactivation without any modernization and fancy new ammo. The crew requirement would be less than 1/10th that needed for a reactivated battleship and operational costs would be a fraction as well. Development of new munitions for VLS would be far less costly and risky than development of new 16" shells and the benefits could be shared across the fleet, being launchable by any ship with a compatible VLS and not limited to just 4 politically vulnerable and aging platforms. Naval GMLRS I though was particularly attractive. Development risk absolutely minimal since the only thing to be done was adapt it to VLS firing. Each rocket had 4 times the range and about a hundred times better accuracy than a 16" shell AND a much larger warhead. With up to 256 of these in every 64-cell VLS group it offered substantially better firepower IMHO than a reactivated battleship at a fraction of the cost. Need something bigger? NTACMS, LASM or TLAM would do the job. That is tremendous flexibility not offered by the battleships big guns with minimal development risk and cost and the weapons could be shared across scores of platforms across the fleet worldwide, not just 4, greatly improving the chance the right weapon will be available where it was needed, when it was needed. By big cheap VLS barge wasn't really even necessary.

Naturally I was told this was all a horrible idea - although they could never really say why. Though I admit my plan lacked the overt sex appeal.

 

[joko104]

I think you missed the point. Regarding the specific example of "best tank: In interweb forum "debates", when the subject of the best tank comes up invariably the American's in the discussion will say it is the M1, the Brits will say it is the Challenger 2, etc, etc, etc,... Pure jingoistic fanboyism that ignores real world realities. Rarely does the discussion move beyond my countries most badass stuff and real world requirements of real world users are hardly ever considered. Sometimes I decide to intervene with a little practical reality - an intrusion which usually gets me treated as if I have 10 heads.

Not really because the question is "the best." An analogy would be what is the BEST car? Ferrari? Rolls Royce? Bugatti? The question of "best" isn't about widest utilitarian use. It's more like a question of design technology of the best versus the best on equal terms.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Actually, French forces did have tanks and control of the airspace.

They lost, because they underestimated their enemy.

There is a reason I ignore certain people in here. They add little to nothing to any debates it seems.

As for the French, the comparison I was making was in the belief that technology solves all problems. Not that anybody's technology was superior (although what they had was superior to what the Viet Minh had. And they thought they could use their superior technology of the time, which was at the time considered one of the biggest gamechangers in a land war: vertical envelopment and aerial resupply.

This in theory used advanced technology to let them supply remote and landbound separated outposts through supply from the air. No more worry about roads, or convoys, or ambushes. Put the base wherever you want and use modern advances like airplanes, paratroopers and airdrops to supply them with personnel and equipment.

Well, we all saw how well that worked, didn't we? Yes, technology can make a lot of difference in warfare, but it is not the only consideration one must make. Technology can actually make one blind to other things like strategy, tactics, and logistics.

The Viet Minh defeated the French through superior firepower, not superior technology.

Well, that and because they got the upper hand tactically. They first took the initiative, then they took the high ground. After that, the French were royally screwed.

And interestingly enough, a lot of that firepower came courtesy of the US Army. In the early days of the Korean War, when the Army had "Bugout Fever" they abandoned a lot of equipment that the North Koreans captured then sent to China. Neither North Korea nor China used the same ammunition that the US guns did, so they were then forwarded with the ammunition captured to the Viet Minh forces.

I think you missed the point. Regarding the specific example of "best tank: In interweb forum "debates", when the subject of the best tank comes up invariably the American's in the discussion will say it is the M1, the Brits will say it is the Challenger 2, etc, etc, etc,... Pure jingoistic fanboyism that ignores real world realities. Rarely does the discussion move beyond my countries most badass stuff and real world requirements of real world users are hardly ever considered. Sometimes I decide to intervene with a little practical reality - an intrusion which usually gets me treated as if I have 10 heads.

In this I fully agree. It really ticks me off when somebody else comes up and says "My country is the best in the world because..." Well, that is fine, feel free to do so. But when somebody else points out that the weapon being praised is a prototype at best (and most times just a press release that does not exist yet) they get all butt hurt.

Myself, I love new technology. But I live in the real world, and want to know about real world items. Not some fantasy that might be seen finally in 10-15 years or is available in such limited numbers that it is a tiny fraction of the equipment used by the country in action.

Yea, super. Your country has made a T-2015 Super-duper Amphibious tank. Great. But you only have 2 prototypes and expect to start making a few dozen a year. Meanwhile your current 1,000 tank inventory is a WWII relic. Yea, I might get worried about this new tank, in about 20 years when you have enough of them to replace your inventory of antiques.

If the navy required massive fire support, they would not waste time resurrecting obsolete battleships when something like this could be built quickly and for a fraction of the cost

*looks up at topic of thread*

Funny, I do not even remembering battleships here to be honest. Am I caught in the Time Warp again?

 

[apdst]

There is a reason I ignore certain people in here. They add little to nothing to any debates it seems.

As for the French, the comparison I was making was in the belief that technology solves all problems. Not that anybody's technology was superior (although what they had was superior to what the Viet Minh had. And they thought they could use their superior technology of the time, which was at the time considered one of the biggest gamechangers in a land war: vertical envelopment and aerial resupply.

This in theory used advanced technology to let them supply remote and landbound separated outposts through supply from the air. No more worry about roads, or convoys, or ambushes. Put the base wherever you want and use modern advances like airplanes, paratroopers and airdrops to supply them with personnel and equipment.

Well, we all saw how well that worked, didn't we? Yes, technology can make a lot of difference in warfare, but it is not the only consideration one must make. Technology can actually make one blind to other things like strategy, tactics, and logistics.



Well, that and because they got the upper hand tactically. They first took the initiative, then they took the high ground. After that, the French were royally screwed.

And interestingly enough, a lot of that firepower came courtesy of the US Army. In the early days of the Korean War, when the Army had "Bugout Fever" they abandoned a lot of equipment that the North Koreans captured then sent to China. Neither North Korea nor China used the same ammunition that the US guns did, so they were then forwarded with the ammunition captured to the Viet Minh forces.



In this I fully agree. It really ticks me off when somebody else comes up and says "My country is the best in the world because..." Well, that is fine, feel free to do so. But when somebody else points out that the weapon being praised is a prototype at best (and most times just a press release that does not exist yet) they get all butt hurt.

Myself, I love new technology. But I live in the real world, and want to know about real world items. Not some fantasy that might be seen finally in 10-15 years or is available in such limited numbers that it is a tiny fraction of the equipment used by the country in action.

Yea, super. Your country has made a T-2015 Super-duper Amphibious tank. Great. But you only have 2 prototypes and expect to start making a few dozen a year. Meanwhile your current 1,000 tank inventory is a WWII relic. Yea, I might get worried about this new tank, in about 20 years when you have enough of them to replace your inventory of antiques.



*looks up at topic of thread*

Funny, I do not even remembering battleships here to be honest. Am I caught in the Time Warp again?

I understood your point well. The Viet Minh defeated the French with superior firepower and as you point out, with a tactical advantage, not because they had fancier weapons and equipment.

 

[Oozlefinch]

I understood your point well. The Viet Minh defeated the French with superior firepower and as you point out, with a tactical advantage, not because they had fancier weapons and equipment.

But notice how easily some in this seem to be, taking the point I mention into a completely different direction altogether.

I know you got it, I was actually talking to some of those in here that are rather clueless. I could buy them a game from Parker Brothers, and they would still be clueless.

But the French had superior technology, superior equipment, and a lot more of it. And they still lost.

So obviously the solution to what the best XXXX is does not fall just on who actually has the best XXXX but on who uses their XXXX the best.

Technology helps, but it is not the be-all end-all.

 

[beerftw]

I would like to address something that I am finding all to frustrating when dealing with military equipment in these forums. And that is the high degree of "Fanboiism" in some of the threads here.

.

us euipment is superior,but whats best is situational.

i know russian euipment is much less precise,but their euipment is very reliably and rugged,and is designed for subzero temps of siberia,deserts south of russia,and the humid forests east of russia in western europe.their gear does exactly what its intended to do,not fail under extreme conditions,which for russians was a very important factor.the most notable piece is the ak-47,which sacrificed accuracy for reliability,but we know the can make them accurate,they made a design based off the ak as a sniper rifle,and they had the mosin nagant,which was dead on reliable and accurate,though slow firing being a bolt action.

other countries often do the same,they have to factor in price,production capabilities,and what conditions the gear will be used in.