ITT: Sea Skimmer rescues it from stupidity [Damage to tanks]

[Eternal_Freedom]

As for the cost of the weapons, well, as of maybe 2006 or so a single Javelin anti-tank missiles was on the order of $75,000. So yeah, the cost of the vehicles is a complete red herring.

Not to mention the cost of fuel and other supplies for the much higher number of troops you would need. Plus the cost of training those troops. This is a bad idea. Zerg rushes with "cheap" units do not work in warfare anymore.

[Lord Revan]

Well I'd say most of the time rather than all the time but the sasic point still stands.

There's a military saying that goes "no plan survives the contact with the enemy", now this doesn't mean you don't plan, but rather you prepare for the fact that plans most likely will have to be adjusted to suit the changing situation. That's why to go for the things that work most of the time, even if you can think of a very specific situation where that thing wouldn't work.

Ghetto:edit "basic point" not "sasic point" (what ever that is).

[Broomstick]

You could probably produce those cars from a dedicated factory for about that price except the cost of the factory itself.

It costs more than $1,000 in materials alone to build a vehicle. My pick up is worth about $400 as scrap iron alone (just checked today's prices on scrap iron vs. weight - you could get even more if you were willing to separate some of the materials instead of just junking the whole thing), never mind the rubber, wiring, battery, and other bits and pieces.

Okay, so obviously not the average, but still A LOT of people have near or over a million dollars either in raw cash or in assets.

For your purposes home equity is sort of useless "Hi, I'd like to take out a second mortgage to build a technical and shoot some tanks" - trust me, no banker is going to give you a loan based on that. Really, if you're doing this sort of thing you need cash or the equivalent.

If a vehicle is selling for $1,000 in an First World country there is something seriously fucking wrong with it, because most vehicles are worth more sold off as parts than that. That's why a criminal enterprise known as a "chop shop" even exists.

Yes, they will. Comparing photos of the same location over time has been a standard military practice since WWI. Not to mention people coming and going. Footprints. Disturbed sand.

The sand can be replaced by people with rakes and shovels to make it look natural, and if the sand blanket they used is good enough,it won't show any wrinkles or noticeable bumps. For example, each third or so wave of cars could have equipped it's rear cars with sand rakes to erase their tracks.

It's a lot fucking harder to replace sand and make it look natural than you think. Unless you bury your vehicles in sand, making the upper surface actually flat, there are aerial photography techniques that WILL reveal them. You can't disguise them in such a manner that they will be disguised under all lighting conditions (the sun does move during the day), angles, and temperature variations. First world militaries are not restricted to the visible spectrum of light, after all. The days when a suitable camouflage pattern printed on a cloth and pulled over a vehicle serving as a disguise against modern militaries are long gone.

Good god - no, it's not that simple. It would require rehearsal. Which would be noticed.

Then the troops would be sufficiently trained BEFORE the mission, not during the mission. And they would plenty of time to prepare while they're waiting as well.

So... how do you intend to keep this rehearsal secret?

Normal 4x4 or Utes cost more like 2,000-5,000 even used. Then there's the cost of fuel for all those. And the cost of guns.

They could set up a proper factory for that kind of stuff, not just go around buying them off eBay. By the way I am talking about a proper developed government doing this, such as USA, China, England, etc.

A "proper government" has tank factories. There is zero incentive for them to do this! Even in WWII when the US government took over all the car factories they didn't use them to make cars, they used them to make airplanes and tanks!

Which people take 20-30 years to pay off! They don't pay cash up front for that.

Not all the time, sometimes people do actually purchase houses outright. One million isn't really all that much, considering that you can win 50 million dollars in a simple lottery draw.

Somebody explain why this is wrong to him, please? Because I'm about to start smashing things with a sledgehammer.

Where the FUCK do you see even new Toyotas going for $90,000? Holy fuck you are clueless.

No, you are clueless. Just have a look at this link, and notice that not all of these cars are actually brand-new, and they still cost ABOVE $90,000.

http://www.carsales.com.au/cars/results ... =makemodel

No, shit for brains - that is NOT an ordinary car or pickup - which is where you started you goal-post shifting moron. THAT is the Japanese equivalent of a US Hummer!

Yes but a Ford Model A wouldn't be effective for what you propose.

Here is a nice sedan for $250: http://www.carsales.com.au/private/deta ... 0592/?Cr=3

A nice removeable ute for $300: http://www.carsales.com.au/private/deta ... 510/?Cr=13

A lovely 4X4 for the ultra-high price of an excruciatingly expensive $900: http://www.carsales.com.au/private/deta ... 418/?Cr=13

As you can see, you can easily get a very good vehicle (possibly not road-legal) for less than $1,000.

As noted - if there is a vehicle being sold that cheap there is something fucking WRONG with it! And you're planning to put light armor and heavy artillery on it? And expect that to work?

I flat out don't believe the first claim - a used but well-running car engine is worth more than what he's asking for even without the rest of the car. So why the fuck the low price? You know that bit about how something too good to be true probably isn't? This is an example.

Second one - the seller admits to a missing windscreen and an oil leak that needs to be fixed. No, that's NOT a good vehicle! Why is oil leaking? That could be a serious problem

Third - not even an assurance it's running! Bought with the intent to convert it to electric - did that conversion get started? Is it mid-way through? And from the photos it's been in at least one accident judging by the dent.

Tell me, have you ever bought anything more valuable than, say, breath mints in your life?

[Lord Revan]

about lotteries you can 50 000 000$ sure but it's not likely, the reason companies or goverments can afford lotteries is that more people get nothing (and thus the company gains the money from the lottery ticket) then people hit the jackpot, indeed it's very possible that no-one hits the jackpot, winning a lottery is a highly atypical special situation, winning lottery more then once in a row is most likely a fraud.

so normal people (you know people who aren't in the top 1%) don't generally have millions to spare. I recently found out how much my mother's personal wealth is (reason for that are private so I won't tell them here or anywhere else for that matter) and including part ownership on 2 houses it all didn't add to more then 3 000 000 € IIRC (and includes assets that cannot be easily turned into useble), oh and my personal assets are about 100 000-200 000 € and that's not atypically low either. So you're not gonna have that many normal people buying a house without signifigant pre-planning.

Oh and Broomy I think we got an affluensa patient in our hands here.

[Starglider]

US adult median net worth, including retirement savings and home equity, is currently about 45K USD. Lower than you might expect, but really only the boomer generation has a lot of home equity and even there a large fraction of them are renting. The mean net worth is 300K USD, showing the contemporary skew from historically high income inequality; even there, about two thirds of that is home equity (i.e. not very liquid). Of course the US is the most prolific user of credit cards, personal loans and leasing in the world, resulting in a standard of living that would require a lot more savings in a country with a more typical borrowing/savings ratio.

That is merely an aside; the insanity of this suggestion is entirely unrelated to how many second-hand trucks the average civillian can purchase. Although from personal experience I would say one does tend to run short of driveway/garage space after the first five or so mostly/semi/in-operable vehicles/trailers, and that's without the additional hassle of deploying camoflauge netting every time you park.

[Sea Skimmer]

Wow did this get stupid, but then I had never meant to physically save it from being deleted either.

This is why infinite technicals mean nothing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-Qw6S-46GI

~100 x shells fired by one battery at a couple dug in BMPs deployed in a platoon strongpoint. Has little observable direct effect though tremendously suppressing while it lasts. Had instead 30 technicals occupied this position half of them would be on fire when what is all and all a small bombardment ends. Had 100 technicals occupied this position then it would be a shear sea of fire as all the burning fuel and ammo began to ignite other vehicles. You can't just bunch of light vehicles to gain more combat power, it's only going to feed kills to the enemy.

This is just 10 minutes of fire from one battery. A modern division has about two dozens, plus rocket launchers and infantry mortars. These weapons can fire in all weather and within reason, around the clock on very short notice.

[Lord Revan]

As for a 20mm autocannon like the Bushmaster from the Bradley's probably wouldn't penetrate the Abrams side armor (at least not without a solid hit), .50 cal wouldn't penetrate even the rear armor as there have been cases of abrams tanks shooting each other with the mounted MGs to get rid of infantry that got too close.

Again tanks have existed for 100 years, cars even longer. The .50 cal M2 HMG dates to WWII (at least) and you had those mounted on jeeps so again if an unarmored car was a viable replacement for a tank it would have been done ages ago. This isn't rocket science, it's not hard to understand it just need for you to accept that you're not perfect and have flaws (this is to archinist). Oh and modern tanks are faster and more nimble then their WWI or WWII counterparts, in fact modern tanks are starting to be as fast and nimble off-road as cars, they're not the lumbering things of WWI that you could outpace by walking and took ages to turn.

[Lord Revan]

Wow did this get stupid

it's pride that causes that I think. Frankly I have hard time beliving anyone could be as stupid as archinist gives the impression of himself, but I could belive someone to be arrogant enough to not admit that he made an error and end up digging himself deeper and deeper trying to justify that mistake as some hidden genius as archinist does.

[Sea Skimmer]

As for a 20mm autocannon like the Bushmaster from the Bradley's probably wouldn't penetrate the Abrams side armor (at least not without a solid hit), .50 cal wouldn't penetrate even the rear armor as there have been cases of abrams tanks shooting each other with the mounted MGs to get rid of infantry that got too close.

Even 25mm APFSDS is only reliable from the rear of M1, though some portions of the side may be vulnerable point blank, as the rear is only 40mm thick on an M1, and the exhaust grill doors are even thinner .50cal gunfire of any form is only a concern for a tank at very close ranges where the gun could deliver sustained fire and damage things a single round would not.

Even if the engine bay is penetrated by anything meanwhile, unless that cause a major fire you only disable the tank, with zero crew losses. The tank gets a new engine, and say 25mm shells just won't be capable of causing much other damage. This is highly repairable situation. The crew compartment is much better protected, autocannon might penetrate it but they would need to be much bigger.

Soviet style tanks had a lot less side turret armor then the 60-70 ton western tanks but it was still not generally less then 80mm cast steel with excellent ballistic shaping. That's the same as the side of a Tiger 1. The hulls varied and tended rather thin, like western tanks thicker on crew compartment then engine bay, but this would only matter at close to perpendicular angles. Generally one expects autocannon armed vehicles to be busy firing at each other and suppressing enemy anti tank teams. That's one of the reasons all tanks will not just die to ATGMs, dozens of autocannon on infantry carriers can fight back against those, besides the hoards of mounted and dismounted machine guns involved in an attack that suppress the shorter ranged RPG threat.

It's not about absolutes, its about turning probabilities overwhelmingly in your own favor.

[Lord Revan]

As for a 20mm autocannon like the Bushmaster from the Bradley's probably wouldn't penetrate the Abrams side armor (at least not without a solid hit), .50 cal wouldn't penetrate even the rear armor as there have been cases of abrams tanks shooting each other with the mounted MGs to get rid of infantry that got too close.

Even 25mm APFSDS is only reliable from the rear of M1, though some portions of the side may be vulnerable point blank, as the rear is only 40mm thick on an M1, and the exhaust grill doors are even thinner .50cal gunfire of any form is only a concern for a tank at very close ranges where the gun could deliver sustained fire and damage things a single round would not.

Even if the engine bay is penetrated by anything meanwhile, unless that cause a major fire you only disable the tank, with zero crew losses. The tank gets a new engine, and say 25mm shells just won't be capable of causing much other damage. This is highly repairable situation. The crew compartment is much better protected, autocannon might penetrate it but they would need to be much bigger.

Soviet style tanks had a lot less side turret armor then the 60-70 ton western tanks but it was still not generally less then 80mm cast steel with excellent ballistic shaping. That's the same as the side of a Tiger 1. The hulls varied and tended rather thin, like western tanks thicker on crew compartment then engine bay, but this would only matter at close to perpendicular angles. Generally one expects autocannon armed vehicles to be busy firing at each other and suppressing enemy anti tank teams. That's one of the reasons all tanks will not just die to ATGMs, dozens of autocannon on infantry carriers can fight back against those, besides the hoards of mounted and dismounted machine guns involved in an attack that suppress the shorter ranged RPG threat.

It's not about absolutes, its about turning probabilities overwhelmingly in your own favor.

Still the point is that if there was quick, easy and cheap way to replace tanks it would have been done already and trying to find a one specific scenerio where mass technicals could beat a group of tanks is simply admitting defeat since it's heavily stacking the deck in favor on the technicals and not looking at bigger picture.

[bilateralrope]

Zerg rushes with "cheap" units do not work in warfare anymore.

That all depends on who is fighting. Sure, the technicals will lose to tanks. But if neither side can afford tanks, technicals sound like they have some usefulness.

[Archinist]

As for a 20mm autocannon like the Bushmaster from the Bradley's probably wouldn't penetrate the Abrams side armor (at least not without a solid hit), .50 cal wouldn't penetrate even the rear armor as there have been cases of abrams tanks shooting each other with the mounted MGs to get rid of infantry that got too close.

Even 25mm APFSDS is only reliable from the rear of M1, though some portions of the side may be vulnerable point blank, as the rear is only 40mm thick on an M1, and the exhaust grill doors are even thinner .50cal gunfire of any form is only a concern for a tank at very close ranges where the gun could deliver sustained fire and damage things a single round would not.

Even if the engine bay is penetrated by anything meanwhile, unless that cause a major fire you only disable the tank, with zero crew losses. The tank gets a new engine, and say 25mm shells just won't be capable of causing much other damage. This is highly repairable situation. The crew compartment is much better protected, autocannon might penetrate it but they would need to be much bigger.

Soviet style tanks had a lot less side turret armor then the 60-70 ton western tanks but it was still not generally less then 80mm cast steel with excellent ballistic shaping. That's the same as the side of a Tiger 1. The hulls varied and tended rather thin, like western tanks thicker on crew compartment then engine bay, but this would only matter at close to perpendicular angles. Generally one expects autocannon armed vehicles to be busy firing at each other and suppressing enemy anti tank teams. That's one of the reasons all tanks will not just die to ATGMs, dozens of autocannon on infantry carriers can fight back against those, besides the hoards of mounted and dismounted machine guns involved in an attack that suppress the shorter ranged RPG threat.

It's not about absolutes, its about turning probabilities overwhelmingly in your own favor.

Well, a good quality SLAP .50 cal round can apparently penetrate up to 30mm (34) of some sort of steel (it doesn't say) at about 500 meters, so assuming that some sort of steel or metal is roughly equivalent to the steel that the rear of an M1A2 uses, that means it could almost penetrate which is pretty neat I guess.

Here are some videos of M1 Abramses being obliterated by shady people hiding in bushes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7iXAXBQ_0o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ePvNlfrxfw

So as you can see, a single ATGM is enough to easily destroy the best tank, the american tank, the M1 abrams, and only from some shady peeps hiding in the bushes! Imagine if there was a proper organized army of them pitted against an entire column of america. The americas would be easily destroyed as dozens and dozens of rockets would be fired, each one near-guaranteeing a kill.

I am also curious, how much can a 14.5 AP penetrate? I've heard it was about 40 or 50mm, but that seems a bit exaggerated.

[Lord Revan]

Tanks can get destroyed by anti-tank weapons, no shit Sherlock, that's kind of the purpose of anti-tank weapons. 1 man has been able to mission kill tanks in WWII it's nothing new, but here's the catch and it's something we've been trying to hammer to your head for ages, a single man can possibly sneak up and kill tank but if he gets detected before he is on firing position then the tank has countless options to kill the soldier with the AT weapon, also in the soldier misses with AT weapon (not impossible after all) he has little way of fighting back as the missle launch just revealed his position.

Zerg rushes don't work in real life against modern weapons, showing videos of a single abrams getting taken out doesn't change that.

I'll leave a more detailed explanation for someone who can explain it more clearly then me.

[Enigma]

So as you can see, a single ATGM is enough to easily destroy the best tank, the american tank, the M1 abrams, and only from some shady peeps hiding in the bushes! Imagine if there was a proper organized army of them pitted against an entire column of america. The americas would be easily destroyed as dozens and dozens of rockets would be fired, each one near-guaranteeing a kill.

I am also curious, how much can a 14.5 AP penetrate? I've heard it was about 40 or 50mm, but that seems a bit exaggerated.

And all of them would be hiding in bushes? You think the U.S. Army just uses tanks? Have you no concept of combined arms? They'd be doing a lot of recon before going into battle (at least I hope so). They are not going to just throw tanks at an opponent

I swear, you are just as bad as JasonB but with better spelling and grammar.

[Archinist]

So as you can see, a single ATGM is enough to easily destroy the best tank, the american tank, the M1 abrams, and only from some shady peeps hiding in the bushes! Imagine if there was a proper organized army of them pitted against an entire column of america. The americas would be easily destroyed as dozens and dozens of rockets would be fired, each one near-guaranteeing a kill.

I am also curious, how much can a 14.5 AP penetrate? I've heard it was about 40 or 50mm, but that seems a bit exaggerated.

And all of them would be hiding in bushes? You think the U.S. Army just uses tanks? Have you no concept of combined arms? They'd be doing a lot of recon before going into battle (at least I hope so). They are not going to just throw tanks at an opponent

I swear, you are just as bad as JasonB but with better spelling and grammar.

The gunships are inefficient at targeting infantry as seen in videos where the helicopter has to unload dozens and dozens of rounds just to kill 10 probably poorly trained guys with wooden bang bang sticks. Also, the gunships could be swatted out of the sky by a single guy with a shoulder-fired AA launcher, which has happened many times.

But back to the scenario. The jeeps could be covered with a new sort of sand blanket. Instead of a plastic sheet with a sandy texture on it, it could be an actual sand container with opaque bottom and sides while the top is open to the air and is filled with sand. That means when the gunship men and the men in airplanes look down at the technical army, they don't see some strangely fake-looking picture of sand on a plastic sheet, they actually see REAL SAND. This effect could be further enhanced by adding horses and cows to the top of the sand blanket, in specific areas where the bottom is supported by cheap wooden pillars.

One the enemy sees the cows and sheep on the sand blanket they will have absolutely no doubt that this is a real sand dune.

Also, there was that battle where a bunch of tanks invaded a city with some drunken troops that were apparently having a party in the middle of the city and also cleaning the streets and then got slaughtered and all their tanks destroyed by some strange men from dark alleys. Then they called for reinforcements but all the tanks drove the wrong way because the tank crews instead wanted to check out the local porn shops instead of assisting their comrades and then they got destroyed further by more filthy men in dark alleys. So that happened, maybe a bit exaggerated but still if it happens once it can happen again.

How will the artillery react quickly enough to the 50 ATGMs flying out of the ridgeline to the right and destroying 30 vehicles, and 20 seconds later, another 50 ATGMs fly out of the left ridgeline, destroying another 30 vehicles. Then the ridgelines move up and down, firing from new positions each time until many more vehicles are destroyed (let's say 20) and then all the technicals leave the ridgeline and appear to the front and back of the convoy where they fire 50 + 50 ATGMs, (100 in total) destroying at least another 60 vehicles. That's 120 tanks, artilleries, APCs, really fancy jeeps, and scouts/maintenance/fuel/MRAP vehicles gone in just 20 minutes or so.

Plus there is also the mixture of not only AT shells, but also shells filled with mud which is very sticky and thick and will coat the most vehicles that post the greatest danger to the technicals at first and blind them by covering their sensors and pericopes with thick mud.

[Elheru Aran]

Shells. Filled with mud.

Yeah, we're done here, fellas. Go home. What are you still here for.

[Archinist]

Shells. Filled with mud.

Yeah, we're done here, fellas. Go home. What are you still here for.

Well, can you actually argue why this is a shoddy tactic, or just quote internet memes?

Okay now, I didn't mean actual mud that you get from the ground, I was thinking more of some sort of artificial mud that would be suitable for this purpose. It would work well in that case.

[Elheru Aran]

Okay...

Do you know how heavy sand is?

Do you know how much weight 'jeeps' can take?

Do you think people are just going to shrug off seeing a random new sand dune where there wasn't one before?

How quickly do you think this fake sand dune could be set up?

How quickly do you think this army of technicals could get out from under the fake dune and execute its attack?

And what makes you think that these tanks will just roll along their merry way with technicals running around popping off missiles at them? (Hint: No)

And so you tried to rationalize the 'shells filled with mud'. Sure, okay, if that was a viable thing (hint: it's not). How are you going to hit the sensors and periscopes and such *reliably*? What makes you think that tanks aren't equipped to deal with a bit of mud on the sensors?

You aren't thinking it through again, man.

[LaCroix]

Also - why waste rounds launched at target by filling them with "mud"?

If the same shell is filled with HE, the damage to the vehicle and optics is much worse than mud could ever be.

[Iroscato]

Guys, stop wasting your fucking time/sanity with this guy already. Your trolldars are in dire need of recalibrating.

[Archinist]

Okay...

Do you know how much weight 'jeeps' can take?

It doesn't matter, because the sand blankets are actually modular, and are made up of many separate bits of 10x10 meter sand blankets, where each section is supported by steel/wood/carbon fiber poles.

Do you think people are just going to shrug off seeing a random new sand dune where there wasn't one before?

Well, obviously the sand blankets will be designed and placed accordingly so they look roughly the same as the natural environment.

How quickly do you think this fake sand dune could be set up?

Um, not all of the jeeps arrive all at once. As I said previously, the jeeps 'trickle' in slowly, meaning that the fake sand sheets would also be slowly built up over time. Sloped sand could also cause it to look even more natural.

How quickly do you think this army of technicals could get out from under the fake dune and execute its attack?

Since they trickle in over many days, that isn't really relevant, unless you're just talking about driving under and out of the cover. In that case, a few minutes, maybe? Just like a really crowded garage?

And what makes you think that these tanks will just roll along their merry way with technicals running around popping off missiles at them? (Hint: No)

The missiles will hit the tanks before the crew can react. By the time they do react, they would have already lost multiple dozens of vehicles, and the ridgeline would have retreated while the other ridgeline would fire at them. They might be able to score a lucky shot on a few jeeps at the most.

And so you tried to rationalize the 'shells filled with mud'. Sure, okay, if that was a viable thing (hint: it's not). How are you going to hit the sensors and periscopes and such *reliably*? What makes you think that tanks aren't equipped to deal with a bit of mud on the sensors?

Each missile would only kill/disable one vehicle, while the mud pellets would open up above the convoy, and spread out over multiple vehicles causing AoE damage. Also, the mud shells are fired from hand-fired mortars, not missiles.

You aren't thinking it through again, man.[/quote]

Also - why waste rounds launched at target by filling them with "mud"?

If the same shell is filled with HE, the damage to the vehicle and optics is much worse than mud could ever be.

The mud would blind those that pose a immediate threat to the jeeps before the jeeps are ready to deal with them. It would only be a temporary effect just until the jeeps can properly target those threats.

I mean, surely this idea has to be better than the mountain fortress? It's obviously not the best, but at least it's a tactic being used by real-life armies, so it must be somewhat good.

[The Vortex Empire]

Or, what will actually happen here, most of the missiles don't even hit since, as you said, they are being operated by untrained amateurs, many of those that do hit do not actually disable the tanks, since tanks are, you know, armored.

The trained military force being ambushed quickly returns fire on the unarmored trucks with machine guns and autocannons, calls in artillery and air support, and attacks a point in the technical's line to break out of the encirclement, wiping them out as they desperately try to flee the wildly better equipped, better trained forces.

I don't even have words for the mud shell idea. If you're trying to stop the enemy from seeing, you can just use smoke, which has the massive advantage of not needing to directly hit the optics and sensors of a moving vehicle.

Archinist, has it occurred to you that if your ideas were viable, they would be in use? Do you see how you need to invent increasingly contrived scenarios for the horde of technicals to win? What happens when the technicals are being ambushed rather than ambushing? They get massacred because they have no armor. What happens when they get bombarded by artillery? They get destroyed and everyone in them is killed by shell fragments since they have no armor. What happens when they need to attack a fortified position? They get massacred because, again, they have no armor. If an army were to use these instead of tanks and IFVs, the army they were fighting could just dig in and be effectively untouchable.

[Thanas]

This is stupid beyond belief.