Reformer US

Lets say we're in the alternate timeline where Mike Sparks and Pierre Sprey got their wish and the US military kept around all its cold war era clunkers indefinitely.
How would the US military look in the year of our lord 2023? How would it compare to the actual modern US? How would it compare to Russia?

  1. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Just transpose the Russian and Chinese militaries, but with US equipment

    the US Army would probably have something like 30 divisions full of M113s and M60s and take months to go anywhere

    the US Air Force would have literal thousands of A-10s and F-16s, and the "Next Generation Air Defence" fighter would be a Mach 3 interceptor armed with medium range IR missiles finding its way by GCI

    I can't recall if the reformers said anything about the US Navy, but it would probably result in a bunch of cruisers equipped with 200+ VLS cells

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >all that shit
      Awful
      >cruisers equipped with 200+ VLS cells
      Based

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >F-16
      Not the F-4?

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        We're talking about the Sprey F-16, so a daylight fighter armed with a cannon and two short-range IR missiles lacking radar.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >Sprey F-16
          >daylight fighter armed with a cannon
          >two short-range IR missiles lacking radar
          Ughhh...return to tradition.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Even Sprey wanted F-16 to have radar. Simple ranging set for gun sight.

            [...]
            >F-16
            >implying any of the teen series sees light of day
            you fucking wish, you're getting the F-5E/F-20 Tigershark and you're gunna like it

            >you fucking wish, you're getting the F-5E/F-20 Tigershark and you're gunna like it
            Both F-16 and F/A-18 exists because reformers wanted new day fighter. Also F/A-18 is just overgrown F-5 variant.

            • 7 days ago
              Anonymous

              >F/A-18 is just overgrown F-5 variant
              retarded take
              >F-16 and F/A-18 exists because reformers wanted new day fighter
              reformers wanted a new jet - true
              but the F-16 and F/A-18 looks nothing like what they really wanted

              the reformers were champions of the "hi-lo mix", "boyd loop", the adage "not a pound for air to ground", and "guns not missiles". NONE of that is present in the final form of any of these fighters, because the USAF took their retarded ideas and turned them into something more usable

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >retarded take
                Literally the truth. It started development as high wing F-5 so they cram more bombs under the wings. Then it started to get bigger because they wanted even more bombs, that required bigger engines so they wouldn't lose performance, then they needed more fuel so they wouldn't lose range and that got stuck on a feedback loop for a while. One neat way to get more lift at slow speeds was leading edge extensions, but that killed the rudder on takeoffs and landings, so they had to go with twin vertical stabs.
                >"guns not missiles". NONE of that is present in the final form of any of these fighters, because the USAF took their retarded ideas and turned them into something more usable
                That must be why USAF went thru all kinds of bureaucratic measures slow down integration Sparrow to F-16. So much so that F-16 had ARMAAM kill before it was rated to use Sparrow. You know, F-16 with BWR armament might have been a threat to F-15 procurement.

                F-16 and F-17 (F/A-18) went forward because Boyd, Sprey and others managed to sell the idea of lightweight fighter to politicians and fighters and """fighters""" USAF were buying at that time were expensive as fuck. Both F-111 and F-15 weren't exactly cheap and there was no way they could re-equip all air national guard and reserve squadrons with heavy and expensive high tech planes like that.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        We're talking about the Sprey F-16, so a daylight fighter armed with a cannon and two short-range IR missiles lacking radar.

        I think we would have got stuck with something like the F-5, Sprey hated digital fly-by-wire

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Given the reformers' preference for cheap shits in huge number, the navy would probably end up with hundreds of FACs and diesel subs.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >hundreds of FACs and diesel subs
        Oh yeah that's it

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >In their 1986 book, Hart and Lind claimed that the day of the large aircraft carrier had passed. Nuclear submarines and powerful anti-ship missiles had made carriers anachronisms, they said. What the US Navy really needed was more submarines and about 40 “high adaptability surface combatants,” which could serve as small carriers and in other roles.
        Pretty close.

        We'd have lost Operation Desert Storm.

        I think the US would've won. Sure they'd have a negative K:D against Iraw but eventually the hordes of M48 and M60 tanks would overrun the Iraqis.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          What did the reformers say about using nukes? Could've just dropped a few on the iraqi divisions and that'd be it.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >Bill Lind gained the spotlight briefly following the Sept. 11 terror attacks when he declared in March 2002 that “within 48 hours, we should have wiped Taliban-held Afghanistan off the map, using nuclear weapons.”

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              William S Lind also once said he supports house Hohenzollern and views Wilhelm II as his rightful kaiser so even for the reformers is is a bit nutty

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              William S Lind also once said he supports house Hohenzollern and views Wilhelm II as his rightful kaiser so even for the reformers is is a bit nutty

              >William S Lind

              Oh god, that nutter. His Victoria book makes fucking Tom Kratmann look sane by comparison.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                William S Lind. His book is so retarded, it's hard to belive any actual synopsis you can read.

                Wait, is this the guy that wrote about the US government being replaced by a theocracy where the black people are all sent to work on farms away from white people because they are genuinely, 100%, unironically happier working on farms than living in big cities?

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Yes. Also, in his "utopia" not being a good little outspoken protestant means you're a heretic and your neighbours will burn you at the stake.

                And the "jouney" how things got that way is even more batshit insane.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >the guy that wrote about the US government being replaced by a theocracy where the black people are all sent to work on farms away from white people
                Based

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                I believe most of the blacks were genocided after the Egyptians invaded Boston to establish New Afrika... only the "good blacks" were allowed to go work on plantat... community farms supervised by white mast... farmers

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                But the Egyptians aren't... what... I don't even...

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Oh, you sweet summer child. That's not even the most batshit crazy bit of that fucking thing.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                That's like the 10th most insane thing in his books. The Mexicans bring back the Aztec gods and go on the offensive for slaves to human sacrifice.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                The PrepHole reads Victoria threads from c.2016 are my favorite that have ever been posted here. From the Tsar sending T-34s (better than Abrams!) to the lesbian amazon air force of California to nuking Atlanta... it makes Turner Diaries look tame.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              There were calls after 9/11 to nuke Mecca and be done with it. We tried nation-building instead, in the hopes that we could get the locals to police the terrorists for us in the long run.

              If it happens again... it'll be harder to argue against that option.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Only if you want to declare war on Africa, the Middle East, Pakistan, Indonesia, and Europe all at once

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                If Afghanistan is the hill they wish to die on, then let them join in the graveyard of civilizations.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                For a month or two after 9/11, there was a lot of popular sentiment for doing pretty much that.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >Only if you want to declare war on Africa, the Middle East, Pakistan, Indonesia, and Europe all at once
                Yeah.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              In retrospect, this may have been a better idea.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                No.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          That would also have meant dragging hoards of M48s and M60s all the way to Iraqi. US logistics are good but that's expodentially more work than just moving under 2000 abrams.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            You’re not thinking reformer. The US would build thousands of liberty ships to ship thousands of Pattons to Kuwait.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              And then found out the port couldn't accomedate them, tried to build their own dock, fail, and then get overrun while most of the tanks were still on the ships.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          We didn't have the logistics to support a horde of expendable tanks and planes like Sprey wanted. Keeping a M1 gassed up is easier than keeping the half-dozen throwaway tanks you'd need to account for attrition in supply.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        We're talking about the Sprey F-16, so a daylight fighter armed with a cannon and two short-range IR missiles lacking radar.

        Just transpose the Russian and Chinese militaries, but with US equipment

        the US Army would probably have something like 30 divisions full of M113s and M60s and take months to go anywhere

        the US Air Force would have literal thousands of A-10s and F-16s, and the "Next Generation Air Defence" fighter would be a Mach 3 interceptor armed with medium range IR missiles finding its way by GCI

        I can't recall if the reformers said anything about the US Navy, but it would probably result in a bunch of cruisers equipped with 200+ VLS cells

        Never dug deep into this reformer thing but it seems kinda weird. Like just the few bits I read here and there make it sound like they wanted the armed forces to be some chimera of the Vietnam era (Pattons, M113 over everything), Soviet quantities and planes designed for WW2 dogfights.
        I specifically don't get their obsession with the M48 or M60. Did they just not bother looking at the Iran-Iraq War and how poorly these types did against T-62s and later T-72s?

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          don't think about it too logically
          every new generation of reformers just wants what they had when they were young

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            I'm glad my shitty mspaint edit of his slides still gets posted when that fool gets mentioned

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              I've always enjoyed it, personally.

              The silliest part of the reformers is their belief, or perhaps lack of understanding around logistics. More vehicles is more maintenance is more fuel is more cost is more crews to maintain is more time spent training is more time spent lobbying for educators and more barracks and more rape allegations and more begging for funding from a government that doesn't need any of it.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                The silliest part about anti-reformers is their belief that advanced vehicles appear out of thin air and they don't want to maintain the industrial capacity that would allow for wars between near peer powers that would last beyond 30 days.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                huh?

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                This but unironically. WW3 will have three phases.

                1. fought with fancy toys
                2. fought with ww2 tier toys
                3. fought with semi-fancy toys

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                correction, ww3 will be:

                1. fought with fancy toys
                2. nukes
                3. armistice between surviving governments

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >he doesn’t think the new homo-sapien-subterranis species will continue the war effort after a few wimpy nukes
                locked

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                why would the molemen care for the petty wars of surface dwellers

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                The silliest part about anti-reformers is their belief that advanced vehicles appear out of thin air and they don't want to maintain the industrial capacity that would allow for wars between near peer powers that would last beyond 30 days.

                correction, ww3 will be:

                1. fought with fancy toys
                2. nukes
                3. armistice between surviving governments

                ok retards

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                do you think any of the modern nations would have the political will or economic ability to fight a broken back conflict after a nuclear exchange?

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                wasn't replying specifically to you

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                then why reply to me at all?

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                After a nuclear exchange, there would actually be a lot *more* fighting as nations desperately struggled to replace the things--especially food and food precursors (like fertilizer and fuel)--that they could no longer obtain through international trade.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                The entire concept of a broken-back conflict is that it's the only thing you can maintain with your current political will and economic ability.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Sure, but by the time stockpiles run low you'll have already made more good tanks. The reformist logic would be like 1938 Germany saying "We'll probably run out of panzer IIIs and IVs so lets just build Panzer Is and IIs because machineguns are good for killing infantry."

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >The reformist logic would be like 1938 Germany saying
                "A7Vs worked fine in the last war, fuck off with your Panzer bullshit"

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            I think it's less that than a general idea that they know best. There isn't a 100% consensus beyond the fact that the current direction is bad. I've seen some reformers lean into missiles to the retarded logical conclusion.
            >Mach 3 B1b Lancer sized interceptor loaded with AMRAAMs

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              To be fair, when you picture a wing of planes like that in your head, sweeping in to launch a salvo, they seem pretty cool!
              Problem is, rule of cool doesn't really apply in reality.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            This shit so fucking much. Literally any and every new thing ever made is just shitposted about by assholes that have no idea what they are talking about. Just look at any of the threads about the new US rifles for example. All of the arguments just boil down to screeching about how its not an M16.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >can't sweep roadside ditches
            Is Pierre Sprey a student of the Russian unsupported tank rush school of tactics?

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              Its not about knowing what you are talking about its about pretending to and saying your stupid ass opinions as loudly and confidently as possible. Its the same premise as all the conspiracy theory nutjobs running around. Why learn about something and actually grasp it as a concept when you can just SCREEEEECH incoherently about it instead? You yell it louder and more confidently so OF COURSE you know more about it.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Firstly, every single major US Armed Forces procurement decision has been criticised as the worst ever. For every single weapon system from the M-16 to the Abrams to the Ticonderogas to the F-18 to the B-2. Keep that in mind whenever you read anything in future about how the X-XX signals the utter death knell of the US military.

          Secondly, Sprey et al are just like the critics of the F-35 today, generally unwilling to accept the paradigm shift in technology and how war is fought. Sprey said the F-15 was too expensive, heavy and unmanoeuvrable in a dogfight, and its radar-guided missiles would surely miss
          >see: https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/0810failures/

          Thirdly,
          >I specifically don't get their obsession with the M48 or M60
          they never looked at logistics (though they pretended to) and other support functions like C3 and ISTAR, never examined the cost of hiring more personnel for their mass numbers tactics, they never believed in spending any money on these things, only in more and more brute force, and they never believed fewer numbers of better equipment could beat large numbers of inferior. They decried the M1 Abrams as fuel-guzzling and too expensive vs the M60, and probably refused to believe that its longer gun, better optics, and thicker armour offered net advantages over the M60.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >They decried the M1 Abrams as fuel-guzzling and too expensive vs the M60,
            They'd have a heart attack if they saw the Abrams-X hybrid program.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              Basically everything in the current arsenal has been criticised as the absolute worst ever so... welcome to the worst army in the world

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          You’re pretty much bang on. The reformers were the epitome of the boomer mindset when it comes to military matters, i.e. obsessed with WW2 and Vietnam and skeptical of anything else because it’s not what they grew up thinking was cool. Sure, they may have said that there were logical economic reasons for their ideas but when it comes down to it they had a mental idea that modern warfare involved mass tank battles and planes dogfighting and so tried to shift the MIC in that direction.

          They’d be a footnote like every other hair brained military theorist (of which there have been many) if not for the fact that they showed up in the immediate aftermath of the Vietnam War when both government and public confidence in the military’s leadership was very low, making the idea of radical change more appealing.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          There are two ways to run a military: with your brain, and with your dick. In academic parlance this is the "warrior mindset" vs the "professional soldier" but those labels are insufficient. We all make terrible fucking decisions when we're horny - for example I was facefucking a dude last night and he was obviously trying to pull of my dick and I didn't let him. It was super hot, but it was also behaviour which is beneath contempt and which I regret. The point is that you know what I'm talking about.

          First, understand that this is not an analogy. It's literally the same thing at play: your brain overriding your faculties of reason to force you to engage in behaviour which is, objectively, stupid. And there is a certain appeal in the idea of hordes of heavy armour thundering across the plains. Modern tech makes an M1 Abrams much more effective but an M60 Patton is about the same size and makes about the same amount of noise so it doesn't matter what you KNOW intellectually: twenty M60 Pattons is always going to make you horny in a way that a single M1 Abrams can't. And if the Pattons are going to take high casualties then that's a GOOD thing, because you get to set your jaw and growl around your cigar that "that's war," and that everyone else just can't handle the truth, while you jerk yourself off into a bodybag under the table with your other hand.

          You can't fuck a tank but you do use it to pick up girls and to convince other men not to fuck your girls or else. The purpose of power is to get sex: tanks are power. More tanks = more power. Thus, "reformers," and you are not equipped to argue with people like this unless you understand that their positions are insincere in a way that they themselves don't even recognise. They're not stupid, they're horny. If only there was such as thing as ego-cumming, because one journey through post-nut clarity would leave them weeping the bitter tears of a man caught sniffing his little sister's dirty panties.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            P.S. all military/reactionary issues make a lot more sense when analysed through this lens. Anything that touches the power of men (their theoretical access to sex) acquires these sexual dimensions and the easiest way to resolve those dimensions is to shift them. Instead of convincing the reformers that network connectivity makes an Abrams better than a hundred Pattons you'd do better convincing them that Pattons are sooo last season, queen, and that all the cool militaries smoke Abrams these days. The only way to interact with boomers is to appeal directly to their need to feel sexually desirable. Simply convince them that their wives will totally let them try butt stuff if only the air force would procure the F-35 for real instead of another 1,000 ancient airframes from the last generation.

            Young people are less vulnerable to this kind of fallacious thinking because their sexual desirability still actually gets validated on a regular basis. Basically the bluer the balls the crustier and more unreasonable the man.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Thank you Robert California. I now finally see the truth behind the reformers.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              loved that dude

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            P.S. all military/reactionary issues make a lot more sense when analysed through this lens. Anything that touches the power of men (their theoretical access to sex) acquires these sexual dimensions and the easiest way to resolve those dimensions is to shift them. Instead of convincing the reformers that network connectivity makes an Abrams better than a hundred Pattons you'd do better convincing them that Pattons are sooo last season, queen, and that all the cool militaries smoke Abrams these days. The only way to interact with boomers is to appeal directly to their need to feel sexually desirable. Simply convince them that their wives will totally let them try butt stuff if only the air force would procure the F-35 for real instead of another 1,000 ancient airframes from the last generation.

            Young people are less vulnerable to this kind of fallacious thinking because their sexual desirability still actually gets validated on a regular basis. Basically the bluer the balls the crustier and more unreasonable the man.

            >sex
            settle down, Freud

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            This makes sense for planes as well. Dogfighting and getting into a one-circle roller where you look into your enemy's eyes before dropping into his 6 and gunning him to pieces is fucking awesome. We should therefore optimise our planes for that.
            Some nerd in a stealth plane pressing a button to fire an AMRAAM guided by AWACS datalink or his RWR to kill a plane 50 miles away is not cool. Nobody wants to watch a film about that shit.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            P.S. all military/reactionary issues make a lot more sense when analysed through this lens. Anything that touches the power of men (their theoretical access to sex) acquires these sexual dimensions and the easiest way to resolve those dimensions is to shift them. Instead of convincing the reformers that network connectivity makes an Abrams better than a hundred Pattons you'd do better convincing them that Pattons are sooo last season, queen, and that all the cool militaries smoke Abrams these days. The only way to interact with boomers is to appeal directly to their need to feel sexually desirable. Simply convince them that their wives will totally let them try butt stuff if only the air force would procure the F-35 for real instead of another 1,000 ancient airframes from the last generation.

            Young people are less vulnerable to this kind of fallacious thinking because their sexual desirability still actually gets validated on a regular basis. Basically the bluer the balls the crustier and more unreasonable the man.

            Spectacular

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Hi LazerPig.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      We're talking about the Sprey F-16, so a daylight fighter armed with a cannon and two short-range IR missiles lacking radar.

      >F-16
      >implying any of the teen series sees light of day
      you fucking wish, you're getting the F-5E/F-20 Tigershark and you're gunna like it

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Sprey actually did help draw up the original design parameters for the F-16 before they were handed to someone competent.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Sprey was slightly involved and a noname with minimal contribution if any.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          The only ones claiming that are him and his friends

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >reformers said anything about the US Navy

      I'd say Nimitz class scrapped and replaced with 20 through deck aviation cruisers but for some reason Sprey hated the harrier. Kind of funny since the sea harrier (before they ruined it by adding PD radar, AIM-120 and multirole capability ofc) is basically his ideal fighter and might actually be the only example of a modern short range IR only fighter actually accomplishing anything.

      In his famous F-35 is a lemon interview he starts rambling about how a Mirage would easily beat a Harrier despite the fact that the Mirage III is the only air defense fighter the sea harrier has actually faced in real combat and it didn't work out too well for the Mirages

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        He probably never looked at the Falklands War or just hand waved it away as "poorly trainer Hispanic pilots don’t know how to fly Mirage".

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        He probably never looked at the Falklands War or just hand waved it away as "poorly trainer Hispanic pilots don’t know how to fly Mirage".

        The Mirages III only had fuel to drop ordinance on ground targets and go back you stupid fucking Yankee retards, the argentinian aircraft carrier couldn't leave port during the entire war because of subs, the whole idea of attacking Britain came from the fact Argentinian air force was bigger and better at the time, they didn't factor the fact the Brits would respond before the islands got made into an airbase
        Why the fuck do Americans always have a botched version of history ?

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          You're botching things pretty badly yourself, friend.
          >ordinance
          ordnance
          >Mirages III only had fuel to drop ordinance on ground targets and go back
          Those were Skyhawks and Daggers; Mirage III was the Argie superiority fighter
          There was one (1) instance of the Mirage IIIs tangling with the Harriers; though none were shot down the Harriers had dominated the fight and it seems the Argentine air force decided not to bother with escorting their bombers afterward
          >the argentinian aircraft carrier couldn't leave port during the entire war because of subs
          Yes, but only after the sinking of the Belgrano
          Before, it did attempt a sortie but was foiled by poor weather
          Not that this is relevant to the air war, because it only carried Skyhawks and they would have been even easier prey for Harriers and AA

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Skill issue

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          I can’t believe European obsession over Americans has gotten so bad they’re talking about British victories defaults to probable American agents

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            no that's class A argentine butthurt
            euros on the main don't really care about it

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >Why the fuck do Americans always have a botched version of history ?
          I don't know,t why do brits have a botched noguns version of a country?

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >Why the fuck do Americans always have a botched version of history ?
          I'm literally holding a gun right now you weaponless cuck. Also who's flag is on the moon? Who has a global empire with bases all over the world? Who doesn't have to pay a fucking license to watch TV?

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Who's army lost to goat...
            Look, there is so many shill on this board right now, i can't help but larping as one for the lulz.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              >ESL
              ignored

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          This guy is Argentinian actually, check how well the NZ Mirage did against the Harriers in a mock dogfight.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Mike Sparks loves his aircraft-carrying battleships

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >but it would probably result in a bunch of cruisers equipped with 200+ VLS cells
      quite possible, given how retarded they were, it would probably be a fuckton of Arsenal ships modified with fleet defense capabilities, 20% of America's GDP going to the DoD every year

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >F-16s
      F-5s.
      >A-10s
      Y'know, it always struck me as weird that the Reformers didn't go all the way and demand that fighter-bombers be replaced with OV-10s, which were actually really good as long as there were no SAMs around.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      You forgot that the A-10 would have just its gun. They threw a fit when it had to have missile launching capabilities added.

  2. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Our operating budget would be increasingly spent on maintenance and cope upgrade packages to increasingly outdated weapon systems pushing at the limits of their capabilities. Ultimately we'd be spending almost as much money, but ending up with far less effective systems. This would be especially true of aircraft because even a slight difference in performance or capabilities can make a day and night difference in effectiveness, but costs an exponentially higher amount of R&D to achieve.

    Of course if we go full reformer and just refuse to do any upgrades, only maintenance and the bare minimum features our tanks and aircraft would basically be manned target practice for any enemy force that has anything more modern than WW2 junk. It might save some money as long as we never use it in a war, but if we do what little money spent would be completely wasted along with the lives of everyone crewing it. At the end of the day the whole point of spending on defense is to have at least the ability to actually use it.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Don't forget the increased budget for manning Sprey's modern-day American horde. There'd be a river of bennies flowing to the former military- especially death benefits for those immolated in obsolete crap.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        It would save money in the end since the state wouldn't have to pay social benefits to all these people who would otherwise be unemployed civilians.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          No.

  3. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    FLYING GAVINS WITH GAU-8 YEET CANNONS! GET YEETED CHINKSCUM!

  4. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >M64, M72, M80, M90, ,M72B3, M90S, M90M

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      /K/ope beaner, the M48A9 chews through wetback human waves and Canadian WARPACT mercenaries just fine :*~~. The Mexican commie regime is making it's final stand in the Sierra Mojada, and soon the Warsaw pact will be forced out of north america

      >B-but muh BMP-4U-
      Will get obliterated by ITOW Dragon-2, and the hundreds of new M1A1HA super-tanks. The only outcome will be six roasted Hispanics in a metal freedom wrap :*~~)).

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >TOW
        Absolutely disgusting. We should’ve adopted towed 105mm AT guns instead. Much faster rate of fire, more accurate and reliable.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          At least we aren't like the commies who use complex, unreliable tech to justify their inflated defense budget. American tanks use the superior rugged, simple and reliable M68. We'll always beat the Ivans becaue of their reliance on overcomplicated tech like ETC and radar and oversized 152mm cannons like the 2A83.

          I have no idea what you attempted to say here but all I got out of it is you're a fag

          >Muh M1A1
          You yan/k/ee doodle dandies really believe in that? We've only ever seen three Abrams in one place at the July 4th parade in D.C., where are the >10,000 that Sleepy Joe supposedly has stockpiled? At your current rate of losses, you'll be using Shermans before the Summer.

          Btw, China just announced they're sending Type 99s, so I'm sure it won't be long til the Soviets decide to send over some T-14s. Can't wait to see them driving through Tuscon.

          >M-muh three Abrams

          Even the M60A6 can easily defeat a T-95UM-4 that can be killed by sandmorons, meanwhile the Patton hasn't seen a single loss according the DoD. But that doesn't matter, because the entirety of the WARPACT can't even supply the tacomorons without exhausting their stockpiles kek. President Bush knows the wetback mass-surrenders will start soon, Ivan. Soon Texas will join us, and this time there will be no feint; Mexico city will be liberated and the Obrador regime will fall to the President's real army of M1A2s and F-117s.

          What will you do after that, when Soviet homes have no shale gas for heating and WARPACT forces have no ammunition reserves:*~~? California and Canada are next, Ivan. It was a mistake to poke the American Eagle. And there's nothing you godless commies can do, unless you want to see our patriotic Minutemen march out of their silos to give Moscow a midnight sunrise :*~~

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        I have no idea what you attempted to say here but all I got out of it is you're a fag

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          He's doing the old switcheroo comedy scenario of Russian invasion of Ukraine = US invasion of Mexico.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >Muh M1A1
        You yan/k/ee doodle dandies really believe in that? We've only ever seen three Abrams in one place at the July 4th parade in D.C., where are the >10,000 that Sleepy Joe supposedly has stockpiled? At your current rate of losses, you'll be using Shermans before the Summer.

        Btw, China just announced they're sending Type 99s, so I'm sure it won't be long til the Soviets decide to send over some T-14s. Can't wait to see them driving through Tuscon.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >Muh M1A1
        You yan/k/ee doodle dandies really believe in that? We've only ever seen three Abrams in one place at the July 4th parade in D.C., where are the >10,000 that Sleepy Joe supposedly has stockpiled? At your current rate of losses, you'll be using Shermans before the Summer.

        Btw, China just announced they're sending Type 99s, so I'm sure it won't be long til the Soviets decide to send over some T-14s. Can't wait to see them driving through Tuscon.

        sensible kekkle

  5. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >How would the US military look in the year of our lord 2023?
    Turkey minus the Leopards, drones and blackhawks.
    >How would it compare to the actual modern US?
    Poorly
    >How would it compare to Russia?
    Russia with their T-72/80/90, Su-35 and Ka-52 would actually appear as some sort of highly advanced nation.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Does the Turkish military not spend money on getting new stuff? Or is it that the us would simply resemble what the Turkish inventory is without those things you mentioned.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >Does the Turkish military not spend money on getting new stuff?
        Turks spent money on both new stuff and upgrading their old stuff.
        > Or is it that the us would simply resemble what the Turkish inventory is without those things you mentioned.
        This one yes.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          I appreciate it brother. I live in turkey and it's hard to get a grasp of what the turkish military looks like.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            sure thing garden gnome

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            They're pretty damn good, even for NATO standards. Their training is not the best tho, but they're sort of making up for it by investing a lot advanced equipment. They make their own attack helicopters, will soon start the production of their own tanks, have shipyards capable of supplying vessels to their Navy, are capable of producing their own missiles and guided munitions, apparently even for their fighters. What leaves a lot of the be desired is their doctrine in combat which has suffered a lot in the recent years after the purge that followed the coup attempt against their wannabe Ottoman Sultan.

  6. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >How would it compare to Russia?
    Kinda a tough one. On one hand a M60A1 manned by a good crew can wrestle a win from a T-72M1 manned by Iraqis, but I think long term the advantage would shift to the Russians.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >a M60A1 manned by a good crew can wrestle a win from a T-72M1 manned by Iraqis
      Did the M60 ever see combat in Desert Storm?

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        the marines used them during the fighting in saudi arabia afaik

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >M60A1s of the 1st Marine Division Task Force Ripper led the drive to the Kuwait International Airport on 27 February 1991. Task Force Ripper's M60A1 tanks destroyed about 100 Iraqi tanks and armored personnel carriers, including T-72 tanks.[124] The division commander Maj. Gen. J.M. Myatt said,[125] "During the first day of combat operations 1st Platoon, D Company, 3rd Tank Battalion destroyed 15 Iraqi tanks".[126] The Marines also destroyed 25 APCs and took 300 prisoners of war.[127] The next day, Marine M60A1 tanks encountered a minefield and attempted to proof two lanes with the MCRS. Both were unsuccessful.[128] One MCRS missed a mine, which blew apart a track of the tank pushing it, immobilizing the tank and blocking the lane.[125] The 1st Marine Division encountered more Iraqi opposition as it proceeded north coming into contact with the Iraqi 15th Mechanized Brigade, 3rd Armored Division. During this engagement the Marines destroyed an additional 46 enemy vehicles and took approximately 929 POWs.[129] Once the 1st Marine Division reached Kuwait International Airport they found what remained of the Iraqi 12th Armored Brigade, 3rd Armored Division defending it. The Marines destroyed 30 to 40 Iraqi T-72 tanks which had taken up defensive positions around the airport.[126]

          I knew the Marine Corps dug in their M60s along the Saudi Arabian border in case the Iraqis tried to attack, but I did not know they led entire advances. Thank you.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >M60A1s of the 1st Marine Division Task Force Ripper led the drive to the Kuwait International Airport on 27 February 1991. Task Force Ripper's M60A1 tanks destroyed about 100 Iraqi tanks and armored personnel carriers, including T-72 tanks.[124] The division commander Maj. Gen. J.M. Myatt said,[125] "During the first day of combat operations 1st Platoon, D Company, 3rd Tank Battalion destroyed 15 Iraqi tanks".[126] The Marines also destroyed 25 APCs and took 300 prisoners of war.[127] The next day, Marine M60A1 tanks encountered a minefield and attempted to proof two lanes with the MCRS. Both were unsuccessful.[128] One MCRS missed a mine, which blew apart a track of the tank pushing it, immobilizing the tank and blocking the lane.[125] The 1st Marine Division encountered more Iraqi opposition as it proceeded north coming into contact with the Iraqi 15th Mechanized Brigade, 3rd Armored Division. During this engagement the Marines destroyed an additional 46 enemy vehicles and took approximately 929 POWs.[129] Once the 1st Marine Division reached Kuwait International Airport they found what remained of the Iraqi 12th Armored Brigade, 3rd Armored Division defending it. The Marines destroyed 30 to 40 Iraqi T-72 tanks which had taken up defensive positions around the airport.[126]

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >30-40 T-72 lost
          Reformers proven right. You don’t need no more than the good old M60.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            the only M60 to be hit by enemy fire burned catastrophically

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Given how much bradleys and airpower were really carrying shit you did not need the abrams at all. The thing is that's hindsight and had there been a war with the Russians it would have been much more important.

            Does the Turkish military not spend money on getting new stuff? Or is it that the us would simply resemble what the Turkish inventory is without those things you mentioned.

            Why bother replacing your tank when you can put it off to when there's more R&D and a sense of 21st century tanks, and the threats you face right now are Russia (lol, lmao even), Kurds (any tank'll do), Iranians (lol, lmao even due to terrain), and Syria (chance of big tank battles low, odds are abrams or more leopards would get fucked all the same).

            Smart move is going to be waiting for the lessons and R&D of Ukraine and buying the next generation of tanks.

            >fighters without radar, misdiles or ejection seat using commercisl radios to coordinate strafing runs with their 30mm cannons

            Sounds kinda sovlful ngl

            What's soulful and what's efficient are increasingly mutually exclusive. I'd rather shit be efficient and ugly and drab than soulful and Russia tier.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          I would kill for quality footage of those engagements, god damn

  7. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    We'd have lost Operation Desert Storm.

  8. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Would this alternative timeline also include Soviets going full quality over quantity to balance things out?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >Soviets exclusively build T-64s and T-80s
      >Later develop the T-95 to completion
      Would be pretty neat

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        They'd build their fabled MiG-41 after that

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >MiG-41
          Holy shit, i just found out about that plane and i love it's design. Let's see if us next generation fighter will looks better.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Which design are you talking about? I don't think any official art of it actually exists, it's all just concept renders made up by news sites etc.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              Damn, you are right. What a shame. I expected more from a plane that is supposed to have its maiden flight in 2025.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >Soviet quality

      Anon, that would need better explanation than timeline shift

  9. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >Reformer US
    Does this include Light Rail trains and everyone in the US speaking Prussian as a second language?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Nani?

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        see

        [...]
        >William S Lind

        Oh god, that nutter. His Victoria book makes fucking Tom Kratmann look sane by comparison.

        William Lind, dude is fucking nuts

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        William S Lind. His book is so retarded, it's hard to belive any actual synopsis you can read.

  10. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Their ideas were never too cohesive beyond "return to tradition." While they didn't support a shoestring budget by any means they preferred older equipment either upgrading existing equipment or building new equipment along the same lines as old equipment. My take
    >Huge army and tank force made up of upgraded M60s, maybe even find some way to fit a 120mm gun on it
    >APCs over IFVs, probably still the M113
    >No humvees or jeeps as actual troop transports, closed top, tracked, and (lightly) armoured transports are ideal
    >Fighters should be agile for dogfighting, missiles should be short ranged for dogfighting
    >Missile boats/modernized battleships in the navy

    The BCT certainly wouldn't exist odds are the US military would just be a massive force of dozens of mechanized divisions which fight not too differently from Russia (still better logistics and less corrupt). While the national guard might be a big factor I think that they would see it secondary to mass conscription in a wartime scenario and thus would treat it as being of tertiary importance.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >find some way to fit a 120mm gun on it
      "you can carry more 105 ammo, no"
      >APCs over IFVs, probably still the M113
      "absolutely; 5 guys poking their heads out of hatches = better situational awareness than prone-to-breakdown turrets with EO sights"
      also, "APCs carry a useful number of riflemen, IFVs don't"
      >No humvees or jeeps as actual troop transports, closed top
      "NO, open top = troops can reliably contribute fire, picrel is the ideal APC and CONOPS"
      >Fighters should be agile for dogfighting, missiles
      "no unreliable expensive missiles, guns are the main weapon; infrared missiles only for backup"
      >massive force of dozens of mechanized divisions
      "yes"

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        It’s really unfortunate Sprey died before the Ukraine war. It’s be interesting to hear his takes on things. Especially once M113s started to get sent over.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          meh, it would have been the same old same old. just look at what Carlsonites are saying. there was a thread earlier on Douglas MacGregor, it would have been about the same crap.
          >Ukes are smashed
          >Polish mercs are the ones doing all the fighting now
          >Russians just proved the superiority of massed T-72s against weak HATO
          >two weeks

          in fact, if somebody can post that USMC Gazette article, that was probably written by some refooormer tard
          bout the same touchpoints anyhow

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            What the heck happened to MacGregor? He was actually forward-looking back in the '90s. It's almost like he got Alzheimer's or something.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              My personal guess? Massively inflated ego and Peter Principle promotion over 73 Easting. Let's be honest; he was the troop commander in the right place at the right time. He did a good job, but then, he was only doing his job. Nor was he the only one; the US and NATO militaries kicked major ass that war. That doesn't qualify him to say anything about anything outside of cavalry ops, let alone the whole US Army, let alone the entire US Armed Forces, let alone the country's overall defence strategy, let alone the country's politics, economy, culture, international relations, legislature, etc etc. But somehow he was raised up as some kind of Patton reborn in the popular media, to say nothing of what the DoD or the Republican Party made of him. The kind of warping the mind gets from all that (undeserved) adulation can do strange things to people, and in more than one way. He might have gotten a mega dose of superiority complex and impostor syndrome, plus the effect of people lining up to suck his dick and people not giving him the aggrandisement (he thinks) he is due, AND the whiplash effect of going from one to another over the years.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >"you can carry more 105 ammo, no"
        Why not use high velocity 75mm guns instead? You can carry even more ammo that way and the rate of fire is even higher. Indian Shermans with such guns were able to defeat Pakistani M47 and M48 tanks. So obviously it would be more than enough to defeat any modern tank.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >No humvees or jeeps as actual troop transports, closed top, tracked, and (lightly) armoured transports are ideal

      Kinda based tbh NGL senpai.

      Except they don't have to be tracked.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >modernized battleships
      Don't think they'd like those. It seems they were more into submarines and thought large vessels obsolete.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >they were more into submarines
        they'd probably think SSNs a waste of time and demand we go back to a fuckhuge fleet of SSKs
        >if Hitler nearly managed to blockade the UK, and the US did manage to starve out Japan, diesels must certainly be sufficient to do the job

  11. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    This reformer meme reminded me about 50's Finnish anti-air procuments. Many said that missiles are way to go, but old beards at HQ said that old 88mm flak 36s are still good to use as a main AA weapon. Somebody at the HQ wrote in corner of that decision paper with pencil "highly doubtful"

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      so basically flakfags arguing that we're gonna be using "old 88mm guns" against drones

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Yes, but against supersonic Migs and jet bombers

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      At least it was old beards in Finland. Reformers weren't even old when they started out.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        imagine how absurdly loud those old military parades were

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          They still are

          T. Have been at the tank commanders place in parade

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Even through the TV it's obvious that the Russian Victory Day parades are fucking loud

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            I mean yeah, they've got dozens of T-34s with ancient diesel engines on the road at one time

  12. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Wow, these guys sound like massive retards

  13. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >fighters without radar, misdiles or ejection seat using commercisl radios to coordinate strafing runs with their 30mm cannons

    Sounds kinda sovlful ngl

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      glad you think so, comrade anon; is off to Bakhmut for you

  14. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    It would be the Russian army but more competent. The US would still be operating "upgraded" Pattons, and they would still delete any other military, but they'd take more casualties doing it.

  15. 1 week ago
    Anonymous
  16. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    I think they should have made the MBT 2000

  17. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    You know, I never thought about it like this before, but was Sprey's entire attitude just down to his own personal WWII pilot fantasies rather than actually thinking it was the most effective way for the military to go? It kinda makes sense when you see it through that lens, more planes means more pilots which means, in Sprey's head, that he himself could've been a fighter pilot. Gun armament means having to dogfight just like in muh WWII stories. No radar means having to visually scan the skies or getting surprised by enemies and having to react just like in muh WWII stories. No ejection seat means danger and excitement just like in muh WWII stories. I think it was all just cope for missing out on the big war he grew up hearing and reading about.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      The standards for being a pilot today are a lot higher than WWII, when the standards were good eyesight and good at arithmetic

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah, but they'd be lower if the Air Force spammed cheap day fighter shitboxes instead of a small number of high tech fighters, and that's probably exactly what Sprey was thinking.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >was Sprey's entire attitude just down to his own personal WWII pilot fantasies rather than actually thinking it was the most effective way for the military to go?
      Not sure about whether it was some Freudian expression, but all this reformer shit, whichever generation of reformer be it, inevitably boils down to fanatically clinging to their own personal biases and refusing to objectively assess the situation and the alternatives. when we say "reformers", we mean not simply people who disagree with the military's current path; reformers are fanatics with very extreme, very firmly-held opinions

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        In this context, the Reformers also misinterpreted the cause of issues that plagued the US military during Vietnam and ignored more reasonable training and doctrinal changes to mitigate those issues.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Its also good to remember that none of the reformers saw any actual real world combat and were either desk jockies or forever flight instructors that taught the "theory" of combat. None of them were analysts untill AFTER they retired from the military and were grossly unqualified to analyze their own asshole.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            afaik Sprey was never even in the military and I don't think he was a civilian pilot either, he was just some guy who happened to work his way into a defense industry job.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              I cant remember his name right now but the one they all looked up to was a pilot trainer in like the 50s and 60s or something. The rest though are exactly what you are saying and were just a bunch of desk jockeys.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      There's often a romantic or ritualistic element to war. Why I get mad when people see some stupid pre modern shit and go "oh it must have been for ceremonial use because they clearly approached war with a purely rational scientific minmax philosophy." The cult of the marksman and fuddlore like that was a reason to dismiss the British .277 or whatever that intermediate they had in mind was. French and the blues of their uniform, I am sure the Brits had a bit of "Why should we wear khaki?". Nowadays I can guarantee you there has or will be some cult of the Special Forces Operator that makes people reluctant to accept change because it goes against their romantic sentiments.

      I mean while tanks are not obsolete, there is 100% a romantic yearning for a 21st century great big tank battle behind the most die hard apologists for tanks. More cheap drones and guided missile artillery just isn't as sexy as some big fucking hunk of metal going fast and shooting big rounds.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      It’s largely this, although less that he personally imagines he could have been a fighter pilot (even on a subconscious level) and more that because that’s what his fantasy and therefore that’s how he imagines it should be. He was entranced by the idea of fighter pilots being knights of the sky and valiantly duelling each other from <100 foot away, and the idea of BVR combat or technological capabilities like stealth or radar giving an edge was anathema to him. Same too with armour design: he imagined great tank battles playing out on rolling plains with high casualties on both sides, so for him the most sensible thing was to get as many tanks as possible and screw the crews inside of them because *of course* a tank battle would lead to massive casualties no matter how fancy your tanks are, that was just the way war worked.

      What the reformers and their like from other time periods all have in common is that they all fixate on past wars as their point of reference, rather than future ones as sensible thinkers do. For Sparky and co it was WW2 and the very early Cold War, for most F-35 critics it’s the late Cold War and the decade or so after it, and for the most modern ones it’s the GWoT. Consider much of the criticism of the SIG Spear. There are legitimate points to be made about the problems surrounding heavier ammunition, but a lot of the criticism stems from the idea that we will always be fighting against unarmoured insurgents from close range so 5.56 is more than enough. Just don’t because the Russian advanced infantry armour program turned out to be bullshit doesn’t mean every one carried out by our enemies in future. Nor does it negate the fact that body armour is getting cheaper to produce, to the point where it is conceivable that decent quality kit could make its way to even insurgent forces within a few decades. You can’t just romanticise the way of fighting old wars, you have to consider how they’ll be fought in future too.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        That's an interesting point about the Spear, and I think it also speaks to the perception, generated mostly by Afghanistan and Vietnam, that warfare is all about long-distance foot patrols in difficult terrain in occupied countries so weight is an extreme concern. Ukraine is giving us a very different picture and it's showing us that in a peer war things like APCs and battle rifles make a lot more sense than we've given them credit for over the last decades of counter-insurgency fighting.
        Also on the subject of the Spear, I think people don't give it anywhere near enough credit for its ballistics. People focus a lot on the armor piercing capability and whether it's relevant, but IMO the fact that they've managed to make a 13" carbine that's capable of producing better muzzle and terminal velocities than a .308 is fucking insane, it's like every rifleman in the squad now has a DMR that you can clear rooms with and that's the real advantage of the gun, total next-level shit and yet barely anybody talks about it.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >than a .308
          Meant to say "than a full-size .308 battle rifle." Annoyingly I can't find the chart now but the ones I've seen show the full power military .277 in the Spear outperforming .308 from a 20".

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >it's like every rifleman in the squad now has a DMR that you can clear rooms with and that's the real advantage of the gun, total next-level shit and yet barely anybody talks about it
          they KNOW it's a fucking DMR, but they refuse to accept that accuracy can beat volume because since late WW1* we've always done things the same way; have the base of fire pour in as many bullets as possible regardless of accuracy, and then manoeuvre
          >(same problem with the USMC IAR decision)
          OBVIOUSLY there's no other way to do it, amirite? it's ALWAYS worked this way, why shouldn't it in future, amirite?

          >*the same people will accuse Field Marshal Haig of the obvious stupidity of simply pouring in as many shells as possible when the OBVIOUS answer, obviously, was to find some way of making the same number of guns more effective, any fool could see that

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >You can’t just romanticise the way of fighting old wars, you have to consider how they’ll be fought in future too
        You have to be intellectually honest, which is what the reformers are not

        It's no coincidence that when faced with rebuttals they immediately resort to ad hominem, censorship, accusations of bad faith, conspiracy theory, etc - because that's the last resorts of people faced with critique they cannot answer but yet refuse to accept

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        A small correction: I meant 'Sprey and co' rather than Sparky, I have no earthly idea where Sparky got his ideas from. The only logical conclusion I can come up with is that they are the product of a diseased mind.

        That's an interesting point about the Spear, and I think it also speaks to the perception, generated mostly by Afghanistan and Vietnam, that warfare is all about long-distance foot patrols in difficult terrain in occupied countries so weight is an extreme concern. Ukraine is giving us a very different picture and it's showing us that in a peer war things like APCs and battle rifles make a lot more sense than we've given them credit for over the last decades of counter-insurgency fighting.
        Also on the subject of the Spear, I think people don't give it anywhere near enough credit for its ballistics. People focus a lot on the armor piercing capability and whether it's relevant, but IMO the fact that they've managed to make a 13" carbine that's capable of producing better muzzle and terminal velocities than a .308 is fucking insane, it's like every rifleman in the squad now has a DMR that you can clear rooms with and that's the real advantage of the gun, total next-level shit and yet barely anybody talks about it.

        >than a .308
        Meant to say "than a full-size .308 battle rifle." Annoyingly I can't find the chart now but the ones I've seen show the full power military .277 in the Spear outperforming .308 from a 20".

        I hadn't heard that about the Spear, but you're right that that's probably a more important feature. Every rifleman having a relatively light DMR that can also be effectively used in close quarters would be a massive step up, especially in combination with the new optic.

        >You can’t just romanticise the way of fighting old wars, you have to consider how they’ll be fought in future too
        You have to be intellectually honest, which is what the reformers are not

        It's no coincidence that when faced with rebuttals they immediately resort to ad hominem, censorship, accusations of bad faith, conspiracy theory, etc - because that's the last resorts of people faced with critique they cannot answer but yet refuse to accept

        Oh absolutely, but I'm saying that the dishonesty is mostly a product of their idiotic fantasies since it's the only way to defend them. I'm sure there's an element of them maintaining that dishonesty to remain relevant to the media, but all the bad faith argumentation is primarily a way of defending their worldview. This also has the unfortunate side effect of actually making them seem more credible to conspiracy-minded observers, because when they get called out on using these tactics their supporters start to believe the establishment really are trying to suppress their ideas.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >a lot of the criticism stems from the idea that we will always be fighting against unarmoured insurgents from close range so 5.56 is more than enough.
        Uh, what? NGSW was about responding to range overmatch in Afghanistan and "stopping power" in Iraq; while one of the main arguments of the 556 proponents was high capacity/low recoil for combat against armored peers.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          One of the key reasons 6.8 was specified for the NGSW program was its increased lethality because of its penetrative capabilities. 5.56 may offer higher capacity, but ultimately it was decided that wasn’t worth the trade off.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            They could have copied the based Chink 5.8 as the perfect intermediate solution.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              Nah. 5.8 is nearly the same as 5.56. 6.5-6.8 cartridges tend to be considered the frontrunners for the best middle ground overall these days.

              Personally, I'm just amused that a modernised 6.5 Arisaka would have be relatively close. Talk about irony.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            That's factually incorrect. 6.8 was required based on specs requiring X joules at Y range with Z BC where Z was deliberately inefficient compared to modern bullet design, probably to prevent the use of ~5mm calibers.

            Penetration was a just-so story added on after stopping power and range, and since it's been invalidated by modern armor and the worthlessness of battle rifles in Ukraine, the next justification will probably be fighting ground robots.

  18. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    USA would still wreck everything and desert storm would go almost exactly the same because NATO wins through training not equipment, but also the equipment helps.

    Russia has this vatnick retardation where they think having the worst equipment and no training makes them manly determined underdogs. Instead it gives them low morale, massive casualties and poor combat performance.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >desert storm would go almost exactly the same
      You're really selling that tech advantage short. Yeah, still a crushing US victory, but it would come with the 30,000 casualties that was predicted before the operation began.

  19. 1 week ago
    Anonymous
  20. 1 week ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Two seat F-16s look so fucking wrong.

  21. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    You know like Russian tanks are today? Yeah like that but American.

  22. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    it would have a much smaller technological advantage over china and russia.
    on the other hand it would've spared the taxpayers from burning money on MIC-sponsored dead end projects like the stryker MGS, the future soldier, the ngsw, the UCP, the zummwalt frigates and a whole lot of other things that are made possible just because there is basically no oversight or accountability.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      yeah instead it would be blowing way more money on personnel and maintenance that only keeps readiness at the same level as opposed to trying to improve the military

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >zummwalt
      Typical reformer not understanding that the contracts were already laid in; they would have cost the same to cancel as to complete, and now we are getting the closest thing to a stealth arsenal ship as is likely to sail the seas in our lifetime

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        sorry to tell you this but the zummwalt was an overexpensive failure that went nowhere besides proving that ships can be made stealthier applying the same principles the US military has known for decades, the navy doesnt even want them anymore.

        yeah instead it would be blowing way more money on personnel and maintenance that only keeps readiness at the same level as opposed to trying to improve the military

        it is my understanding that sprey wanted simpler machines, as in the western notion of simpler meaning reliable, easy to maintain and could be mass produced easily both for domestic and foreign sales, like the F-16.
        if you read any book from the era when the M60 vs M1 debate was going (early 80s) the M1 still had the same 105mm cannon of the M60 when it was adopted, had an engine that broke down three times as much, had a much higher fuel requirement, had a bigger thermal signature, and was in general a much more complex machine (meaning it was more expensive and harder to produce).

        we live in a world that's somewhat at peace right now besides ukraine, there's no need for simple hardware cause the complex one doesnt get expended (besides munitions) and logistics can still be managed easily, so in hindsight his thinking is pointless.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >sorry to tell you this but
          picrel
          also, you have zero clue how contracts and military shipbuilding work, eat a dick

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >you have zero clue how contracts and military shipbuilding work,
            like you do gay kek

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              >just click "Cancel Build" like my RTS games
              more than you anyhow

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        You understand that the Ohio-class sub with tomahawk VSLs is literally arsenal ship?

  23. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >Yes yes, well done house Reformers, well done. You’ve amassed a truly huge number of points this year, very validating.” Dumbledore intoned. His eyes then fixed on Pierre Sprey, head boy of the house. As the crowd clapped politely he held eye contact for ten seconds before abruptly raising his arms. “HOWEVER.”

    >“In light of recent events in Afghanistan, I award an additional contract to Houses Boeing, Raytheon, and Lockheed Martin. For the marked performance of MANPADS versus ground support aircraft in Ukraine, I award an additional contract to those same houses.” Dumbledore noted.

    >Then, with sudden fury, the headmaster boomed “AND FOR THE POOR PERFORMANCE OF SO CALLED SIMPLE, AFFORDABLE SOVIET SYSTEMS, THE SAMESUCH ADVISED BY HOUSE REFORMERS, I SHALL DEDUCT FIVE HUNRED POINTS,” as the crowd started to roar. “ILL TAKE YOUR LIFE AND SOUL TOO, SPREY,” Dumbledore said calmly.

    >“ALL OTHER HOUSES MAY USE THE REFORMERS FOR PRECISION GUIDED MUNITION TARGET PRACTICE. ONE HUNDRED POINTS FOR ANY USE OF ANY COORDINATED SYSTEMS OF SYSTEMS, LOYAL WINGMAN OR EVEN FUCKING RADAR. JUST WIPE THEM OUT, EACH ONE.”

  24. 7 days ago
    Anonymous
  25. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    Where can I learn more about this infighting over doctrine? This is the first time I've ever heard of the "Fighter Mafia" after looking up Sprey.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *