Electric armor is meant to defeat HEAT warheads, not lasers.

Mirrors would not be a particularly effective defence against high-powered destructive lasers: no mirror can reflect 100% of the laser beam, and will absorb some of the beam and thus heat up in the process. In several tests, the very best mirrors money can buy were quickly shatterted by lasers less powerful than 100kW. What's more, in battlefield conditions, the mirror would inevitably get dirty, and thus would absorb more heat from the laser. Your best bet against lasers is simply to use highly dense armoring material or ablative armor.

Agreed, but I think it is a matter of time before energy weapons can overpower the thickest of armor. We will have multi-megawatt lasers rolling arund in tanks instead of a 120mm smoothbore. Massive power also allows for the possibility energy shields as well, and I will start a massive posting of various ways to do this, but is that our future?

One thing I do know, lasers are a direct fire mechnism, unless you can get your buddy to stand in the line of fire and hold a mirror for you (Not gonna happen!:)). So, by 2025, the standard infantry man will be fielding heat sinking missiles (True US Army Req) that make missing impossible, so what chance will the future enemy of the US have against tech like this? I remember Rhumfield saying he likes unfair warfare, but this is getting rediculous!!!

-S

Ever read Sun Tzu?

"If you know the enemy and know yourself, your victory will not stand in doubt; if you know Heaven and know Earth, you may make your victory complete. "

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Art_of_War

Technology matters not its the tactics of each side that win the battle.

:yep:

And come on, is this the first time we have the "new technology will ruin everything" thing? The machinegun... the tank... then, of course, sonar and the supposed end of submarine warfare...

That's the nature of war for you. :hmm:

In a fair fight the winner is the one with better technology, those with inferior technology must fight unfair or lose. The Viet Cong, the Iraqi Insurgency, George Washington’s Colonial Army- when faced with a well-armed conventional opponent take to the countryside or in to the inner cities. Force the enemy to lay siege to your country until he is bleed dry and loses the will to fight.

Cool - send your sword equiped Chinese soldier against my tank! I'll even give you an advatage - you can use China's old Vegabonds to do your dirty work! :) I'll still mow em down like I do the lawn! :P

-S

Just wait till you step out of your tank to take a leak. You'll be dead and it will be my tank... ;)

Oh SUBMAN1?


Let me remind you that the Viet Cong defeated the far superior forces of the Greatest Military Nation in the World, and they didn't do it with overpowering means.

You practically can say that they won using sticks and stones, against B-52s and Battleships. Now of course, they got slaughtered when it came down to the physical aspect of warfare, but they won where it mattered most: tactics and psychology.

And they ultimately won the war.

Our infrared capability was new and somewhat lacking back then. no more hiding now! :)

Actually - it never has been a war against the US Troops - they killed 10 to 1 back then, and today in Iraq, Bush said the number is about 50 to one. The real war is with the American people.

-S

PS. you see the new room penetrating radar they are deplying to Iraq now? Soldiers can now see if there are people in the adjacent room before they even expose themselves.

Good point. I guess someone can man the .50 cal when I take a leak! :) Last time I checked, an M1A2 has 4 crew so maybe I should have 2 people man .50's? :P

-S

You can bet that we'll lose in Iraq too.

You can deny it all you want, but everyone knows that we'll pull out before the entire thing is over.

That is one thing I would doubt this time big time. The US has a different attitude than in Vietnam. There are still the war protesters, but no real massive anti war rallys. Iraq also has a end game plan that includes its own people - unlike Vietnam. It is a very different war and one that will ultimately be won. The question is, when can the Iraqies actually support themselves solely? Most operations now don't even involve US or British troops, so they are getting close, but when is the answer?

Anyway, the US Troops on the ground think the media are complete idiots and they see a much different picture than what the US media reports. I can post some letters from US troops incase anyone is interested, but it is interesting to see it from the eyes on the ground vs what sells a story.

-S

Yes there is hiding. The place is called plain sight. Can that room penetrating radar detect the difference between civilians or enemy insurgents? No. Kinda reminds me of a mission in ‘Tie Fighter’ when scanning the cargo of a shuttle the player detects “Rebels� and I just scratched my head and asked “Does this scanner determine a persons political affiliation?� Use non-combatants as cover and enemy troops as a source of supplies (Uniforms):

“The skillful soldier does not raise a second levy, neither are his supply-wagons loaded more than twice.
Bring war material with you from home, but forage on the enemy. Thus the army will have food enough for its needs.� -Sun Tzu

Tie Fighters have far more advanced scanners, but in its roots it's like Friend or Foe, if it doesn't have an Imperial Union Card, it's Rebel. :arrgh!:

Getting back on track. As aircrew we get shown various videos, pictures, of threatening weapons (The Tor-M1 video we got shown wasn't pleasant). One of the videos which was a recognised threat was the use of lasers to dazzle pilots and rearcrew. One of the only countries to not take part in the agreement (its name escapes me) was the US. They now have rifles with a laser mounted on top used purely to dazzle people (Aircrew, ground troops whatever). We also were shown a dialog of a scientist working on laser technology. A series of events happened whilst he was conducting experiments and ended up having his eye popped by the laser and melt down his face. Which made us all realise how dangerous lasers can be.

There are many threats in the enviroment us fly boys go in, including large flying telegraph poles from the ground, but this one scares me the most. Not only does it cause temporary blindness and things in the short term that could cause the aircraft to ditch but its the long term effects, of which most escape me now but the ones that hit home were eventual permanent blindness and flashbacks.

I don't fancy hanging out the side of a helicopter trying to manouver it into a tight location only to have some farmer from somethinkistan using a laser purchased from America blinding me and causing the helo to crash.

Keep up the good work though :roll:

Or, in the case of the American Revolution, until you can persuade your enemy's enemy to win the battles for you.

Fair fight...? Just listen to that phrase itself.

Is asymmatrical warfare - unfair? It is beyond such categories. Guerillas fight the way they do, to counter for example technological superiority of their enemy. Fairness is not at question here, has nothing to do with it at all. Or honour, btw. Fight the way that you win or be amongst those that are left - that is what war is about.

Fairness... Well, thinking in such terms with regard to warm, that is really queer.

BTW, I can fight off and defeat an opponent who has a knife, or even a pistol, if he is not too far away and acts stupid. Fair fight. F-5 Tigers in an excersice back in the late 80s, I think, defeated an equal force of F-15s, both teams were American pilots. Fair fight. Over at SB they just reported how a good team of Leo-1-tankers defeated an attacking force of Abrams by clever tactics. Fair fight. - Not always does "in a fair fight" the better technolgoy guarantee the winning of a fight. Partisan and guerilla tactics is about how to counter an attack by forcing the enemy into a kind of battle were his superior charcateristics are minimzed or neutralised. That'S what it all is about, denying him his strength, and exploiting and maximizing his weakness, without giving him a target yourself. Is that "unfair"? :-?

Or does "fair fight" mean that the enemy should behave according to the other side's textbook and shall cooperate with his opponent's intention to wipe him off the table?

BTW, my impresison of the VC and the Iraqi insurgents is that they are very successful in what they wree doing. Vietnam war was lost for the US, and one cannot say that the US has Iraq under control. Quite the opposite.

Fair fight... :dead: That is only valid for toy-armies made of tin soldiers

"Battle" singluar verb. Don't give the French too much credit... :D

But they did defeat Kapitian’s Invincible Royal Navy and for that they forever have my thanks :-j

I think you're oversimplifying the effects of the French entry into the war. With the defeat at Yorktown, it became clear that retaining the American colonies would require an expensive war of attrition. Having just spent an enormous amount of money in conflicts around the world as a result of the French and Indian War, Great Britian saw that bankruptcy was a distinct possibility. Thus, the result of the American Revolution was a strategic, not tactical, victory as a result of French intervention. The British has little to fear from Washington's tactical ability and the colonists' skill as combatants.

However, this has little to do with either lasers or tanks, as so, I apologize for sidtracking this discussion.

What? You mean the Americans didn't use laser tanks?!

However did we lose? :cry: ;)