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.

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 19:24:21 GMT, Charles Gray wrote:


That's the real obstacle-- not in coming up with a magic weapons
design, but in producing the people who can design it, and more
importantly, *build* it, which requires an educated and at least
reasonably prosperous nation to build it.
Again, China is probably one of the most capable of the 2-3rd
teir nations, and they needed foreign help for their orbital rocket
shot. I'm not mocking them-- it was a tremendous achievement,
especially when you consider everything they've had to overcome in the
20th century, but the fact of the matter was that they still needed
some outside knowledge/assistance for it. The same thing goes double
for any of these little countries, most of whom have smaller R&D
budgets any european nation.

should probably be asked...which countries can do it, do you think,
Charles?

In article ,
"John" wrote:

Cluster munitions aren't terribly manouverable though. And what makes the
think that the radar put there to let the drivers dodge incoming tank-fire
cannot detect incomming cluster-bombs?

"Sir, we have incoming cluster bombs. What do we do?"

"Well, we have to get outside of an area about the size of a football
field in five seconds from a dead stop. Drive north at about 200 MPH
for a while..."

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

"John" wrote in message
...
"Charles Gray" wrote


Cluster munitions aren't terribly manouverable though. And what makes the
think that the radar put there to let the drivers dodge incoming tank-fire
cannot detect incomming cluster-bombs?


So you detect 200 inbound cluster munitions 3 seconds before they
hit, beyond a quick prayer to the deity of your choice how is that
of material advantage ?

By the way I've yet to see the tank that can outrun an APDS round
so quite what you mean by dodging incoming AT fire is a mystery.


I never said the radar was for guidence; it's there so they can see and
dodge incomming tank-rounds and other munitions..

How do you dodge a round doing greater than Mach 2 ?
I must have missed that detail somewhere

You can use any missilbe
for the SUV, and you can manouver whilst firing. During this period the
wire
is being pulled out the tube at 300mps at minimum, a few mps to either
side
is not going to break it. There are also fire-and-forget missile systems.

76mm AA tanks have been developed (although none are in service as
far as I know-- the Italians evidently weren't able to sell them), but
they have the simple problem of being big enough to be killed from far
out side the 76mm range-- you're going to have B2's and B1's dropping
LCAS GPS guided weapons, and all sorts of other wonderful stuff from
quite far out of range, cued in by UAVs which the Air force doesn't
mind losing at all.

US army next-gen guided-bombs are essentuially UAVs with 90% explosive
filling. They are big and will show up on radar. At this point the gun
turns
and fires at the bomb/missile before it gets close enough to do damage.


How many AFV's have guns with sufficient elevation and
slew range to accomplish this feat ?

Hint its a SHORT list

rest of nonsense snipped

Keith

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 03:47:23 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

pervect wrote:

:From my POV, the key point that I missed in my earlier post (the one
:you just replied to, there have been a bunch since then) is that GPS
:is spread spectrum.

Which really doesn't buy you much in the way of security. DS-SS
merely makes it easier for the receivers to do ranging functions.

You're missing the forest for the trees - or maybe you just like to
argue? :-)

I'm going to give a reference of my own:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9508043

for an overview of a more theoretical and high-level approach as to
how GPS works, and to support the following statements I'm going to
make as to how GPS works.

The very basic principles of GPS are that are it is a bunch of
orbiting clocks, all of which (in the simplest model) transmit their
own proper time.

An observer on the ground, at a fixed location, knows what the proper
time on the satellite must have been when it was sent, when he
recieves the signal, because he knows (or can directly observe) the
satellites orbit.

Therfore, ultimately, an approach based on encryption is going to boil
down to encrypting something that everybody already knows or can
figure out, which is not going to be terribly secure.

Spread spectrum tecniques are really crucial to making this system
have the level of security it actually does.

ess (phil hunt) wrote:

:On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 03:23:49 GMT, Fred J. McCall wrote:
(phil hunt) wrote:
:
::I find it hard to take your post seriously since you are apparently
::unaware of very well-known cryptographic techniques.
:
:And I find it hard to take your post seriously since you are
:apparently unaware of very well-known traffic analysis techniques.
:
:Which, in particular, do you refer to?

Gee, I thought you plonked me the last time I was too correct for you
to stand. Go look it up. Google for "military communications traffic
analysis". You'll get more hits than you know what to do with.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

"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 *

Am Mon, 22 Dec 2003 20:37:41 +0200, schrieb "tadaa" :

Just to give some figures: GPS will give you 5 to 30 meters accuracy
(as long as the US lets you have it). Galileo will give you about the
same accuracy. I suppose the US can jam both. I'd guess if they could
not, they would not have increased the accuracy publicly available and
would make much more of a fuss about Galileo.

I doubt that US can jam Galileo just by turning a switch as it it with GPS.
But they probably will develop some jamming feature against the Galileos
signals.


I heared that turning back on selective availability is not much of an
option anymore because the economic aplications that depend on it are
too valuable to lose and that the SA cannot be targeted in a small
enough area.

Owe
--
My from-adress is valid and being read.
www.owejessen.de

Fred J. McCall skrev i meddelelsen
...

Denying the other guy use of GPS doesn't prevent the US military from
using it.

However the cost to non-military users might very well be the desired effect
of the opponent.

--------------------------------------
Carl Alex Friis Nielsen

Love Me - take me as I think I am