asymetric warfare

"Duke of URL" macbenahATkdsiDOTnet wrote

John's cutesy-pie combat methods were interesting, slightly, but
suited to a 1930's Boys' Book of How to Have a War.

Everything after the SUV/otto-76 was a bit tongue in cheek though.

Peter did a fine job of dismissing them all.

In the case of the SUVs Peter didn't.. To dodge a tank round all you need do
is side-step half the width of your vehicle. Claiming that the tanks will
close to ploint blank range is stupid when they are facing concentrated AT
fire. I'm also not sure he understood the potential of the Otto-76 to shoot
down smart munitions.

And I especially agree with the last one - countries where all the
citizens are heavily armed are not countries like Iraq, where people
the ruler doesn't like get fed alive into shredding machines. So they
aren't the kind of country we'd be needing to invade.

However the question wasn't about poor countries, but middle-ranking ones,
which I took to mean ones comparable to most european nations. Of such I'd
say only Britian or France had the capacity to blunt a US attack, and only
because they can both MIRV task-forces whilst they cross the atlantic.
Nuclear buckshot will kill most things, and doesn't need to be too accurate
either.

ANTIcarrot.

"John" wrote:

:In the case of the SUVs Peter didn't.. To dodge a tank round all you need do
:is side-step half the width of your vehicle. Claiming that the tanks will
:close to ploint blank range is stupid when they are facing concentrated AT
:fire.

So it is impossible for a tank to kill anything? Oddly, experience
seems to indicate otherwise. Tanks are harder to kill than trucks.
Tanks kill tanks all the time. You figure it out.

:I'm also not sure he understood the potential of the Otto-76 to shoot
:down smart munitions.

I'm not sure you understand just how hard this is to do. Obviously,
by your lights, smart munitions can't kill anything, either. Again,
our current reality would tend to be somewhat at odds with your
planet.

--
"The odds get even - You blame the game.
The odds get even - The stakes are the same.
You bet your life."
-- "You Bet Your Life", Rush

"John" writes:

"Duke of URL" macbenahATkdsiDOTnet wrote

John's cutesy-pie combat methods were interesting, slightly, but
suited to a 1930's Boys' Book of How to Have a War.

Everything after the SUV/otto-76 was a bit tongue in cheek though.

Peter did a fine job of dismissing them all.

In the case of the SUVs Peter didn't.. To dodge a tank round all you need do
is side-step half the width of your vehicle.

To dodge a tank round while driving an SUV, you need to side-step the full
soft-target kill radius of a 120mm HEAT-MP round. Unless the Brits are in
the game, in which case it's 120mm HESH.

Good luck.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

"John" wrote:

Nuclear buckshot will kill most things, and doesn't need to be too accurate
either.

ROTFLMAO.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

Nuclear buckshot will kill most things, and doesn't need to be too accurate
either.

Who needs nuclear buckshots if your opponent has nuclear weapons in storage or
in silos,but unfortunately you do need to be utmostly precise.

In ,
John radiated into the WorldWideWait:
"Duke of URL" macbenahATkdsiDOTnet wrote

John's cutesy-pie combat methods were interesting, slightly, but
suited to a 1930's Boys' Book of How to Have a War.

Everything after the SUV/otto-76 was a bit tongue in cheek though.

Peter did a fine job of dismissing them all.

In the case of the SUVs Peter didn't.. To dodge a tank round all
you need do is side-step half the width of your vehicle. Claiming
that the tanks will close to ploint blank range is stupid when they
are facing concentrated AT fire. I'm also not sure he understood
the potential of the Otto-76 to shoot down smart munitions.

And I especially agree with the last one - countries where all the
citizens are heavily armed are not countries like Iraq, where
people the ruler doesn't like get fed alive into shredding
machines. So they aren't the kind of country we'd be needing to
invade.

However the question wasn't about poor countries, but

Straw man.
I did NOT say a word concerning the wealth, relative or absolute, of
countries. In fact, I don't think ANYone did.

middle-ranking ones, which I took to mean ones comparable to most
european nations.

Both the *stars* of Old Europe, Germany & France, have a history of
mass slaughter of citizenry when a new "leader" takes office.

In article ,
"John" writes:
"Duke of URL" macbenahATkdsiDOTnet wrote

John's cutesy-pie combat methods were interesting, slightly, but
suited to a 1930's Boys' Book of How to Have a War.

Everything after the SUV/otto-76 was a bit tongue in cheek though.

Peter did a fine job of dismissing them all.

In the case of the SUVs Peter didn't.. To dodge a tank round all you need do
is side-step half the width of your vehicle. Claiming that the tanks will
close to ploint blank range is stupid when they are facing concentrated AT
fire. I'm also not sure he understood the potential of the Otto-76 to shoot
down smart munitions.

Actually, John, you don't seem to have much of an understanding of how
tanks work, or what the typical engangement ranges are.
Five miles is right out.
The longest range kill achieved by a tank to date is a 3,000m (roughlt
1.5 Statute Mile shot by a British Challenger II vs. an Iraqi T72 in
the 1990-91 Gulf War. Even in open country like Iraq, the usual
longest range for a Main Gun shot on an opposing tank was 2000m. In a
European rural environment, the most likely engagement range would be
1000m. In more closed country, like, say, the Northeastern U.S., or
Maritime Canada, engagement ranges as close as 50-100m are not
unlikely. (Lots of irregular terrain, lots of trees & brush - European
forests are like gardens in comparison.) Engagement ranges within
urban areas are very short - usually on the order of 200m or so.

Time of Flight for a main gun round to 2000m is about 1.2 seconds.
Time of Flight to 200m, is (Wait for it - 0.12 seconds.
Now, Sport, How much are you going to be dodging your SUV in 1.2
seconds. Be aware that you'll have to shave at least 0.5 seconds off
of that for the driver's reaction time.

Also consider that your millimeter-wave emitting SUV is ligking itself
up like a neon sign in a part of the radio spectrum that nothing else
is on. A couple of sinple horn antannae on the turret sides (Sort of
like the old coincidence rangefinder ears) for DFing, and an
omnidirectional antenna up with the Wind Sensor on the turret roof for
general detection, and you won't, say, be able to hide your
Tank-Killer SUV in Madman Morris's SUV Dealership's parking lot.


And I especially agree with the last one - countries where all the
citizens are heavily armed are not countries like Iraq, where people
the ruler doesn't like get fed alive into shredding machines. So they
aren't the kind of country we'd be needing to invade.

However the question wasn't about poor countries, but middle-ranking ones,
which I took to mean ones comparable to most european nations. Of such I'd
say only Britian or France had the capacity to blunt a US attack, and only
because they can both MIRV task-forces whilst they cross the atlantic.
Nuclear buckshot will kill most things, and doesn't need to be too accurate
either.

Time of Flight of IRBM, 30 minutes. Speed of CVBG, 25 kts. Detection
of launch, instantaneous. DSP Sats, y'know. Radius of circle that
could contain the target - 12.5 Nautical Miles.
U.S. Supply Convoys hump along at 20 kts, these days, so you're
looking at a 10 NM circle there.
Time of arrival of U.S. ICBM ('cause we're Nice Guys, and aren't going
to unleacsh somethig on the order of 10 Trident MIRVs on your country,
and only take out single targets, roughtly 1.0-1.5 hours after launch.
Your Command Centers and missile bases, or Missile Sub ports don't
move, and you made the mistake of going Nuclear first.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

"Peter Stickney" wrote...

Actually, John, you don't seem to have much of an understanding of how
tanks work, or what the typical engangement ranges are.
Five miles is right out.

I can only go by what I read. On sedcond thoughts, that does sound a bit far
though....

Also consider that your millimeter-wave emitting SUV is ligking itself
up like a neon sign in a part of the radio spectrum that nothing else
is on. A couple of sinple horn antannae on the turret sides (Sort of
like the old coincidence rangefinder ears) for DFing, and an
omnidirectional antenna up with the Wind Sensor on the turret roof for
general detection, and you won't, say, be able to hide your
Tank-Killer SUV in Madman Morris's SUV Dealership's parking lot.

On the other hand five miles is about the right range for AT-missiles. So if
your tanks want to get to point blank range they'll still need to drive
through a kill-zone. At 40mph that'll take seven and a half minutes. How
many tanks will die in that time before they even get off a single shot?

Of course helicopters would be sent first, but you can buy 100 SUVs for the
cost of a single tank. The helicopters may simply run out of missiles.
Unlike tanks the SUVs may well be able to see as well as they can. And
unlike tanks, the SUVs can fire-back.


Time of Flight of IRBM, 30 minutes. Speed of CVBG, 25 kts. Detection
of launch, instantaneous. DSP Sats, y'know. Radius of circle that
could contain the target - 12.5 Nautical Miles.

35 knots (let's be generous) and half an hour means a ship or convoy could
get 32410m away from the target point. This gives an area of
3,299,954,370m2. UK trident-II missiles can 8 475kT warheads which will
start fires at 9km, meaning they'll make the fuel onboard a carrier explode
within an area of 254,469,005m2. So you need a total of 12 warheads (or two
missiles) to kill the convoy. This assumes the US has perfect reaction
times, and can instantly guess the target at the moment of launch, which it
can't. As I said, nuclear buckshot will kill most things.


Time of arrival of U.S. ICBM ('cause we're Nice Guys, and aren't going
to unleacsh somethig on the order of 10 Trident MIRVs on your country,
and only take out single targets, roughtly 1.0-1.5 hours after launch.
Your Command Centers and missile bases, or Missile Sub ports don't
move, and you made the mistake of going Nuclear first.

Attacking a military convoy (particularly of an agressor) is very different
from attacking a civilian or semi-civilian target. Particularly when the
fall-out will drift over large parts of europe, who will not exactly thank
you in exchange. Again, there is no international law that says, "Thou shalt
not attack the US." The US would also *not* launch against the british
islands without making damn sure they'd knocked out our ballistic submarines
first. Otherwise a single sub can destroy america. MAD remember?

Besiodes which we have no silos or command centers! Have you seen the state
of London traffic? There's be no way the PM could get out in time! ^.^

ANTIcarrot.

"John" wrote in
:

[snip]

35 knots (let's be generous) and half an hour means a ship or convoy
could get 32410m away from the target point. This gives an area of
3,299,954,370m2. UK trident-II missiles can 8 475kT warheads which
will start fires at 9km, meaning they'll make the fuel onboard a
carrier explode within an area of 254,469,005m2. So you need a total

Well, I suupose if there was a large quantity of fuel lying about
in puddles on deck that might be true, otherwise what kind of
drugs are you on?

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

In article ,
"John" wrote:

On the other hand five miles is about the right range for AT-missiles.

That's interesting, because the vast majority of deployed ATGM systems
in the world have a range of much less than half that, and only one or
two can make as much as 6,000 meters.

The smaller ones that would fit in the "slap it on an SUV" category
would be in the 1,000 to 1,500 meter range.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.