Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Re: hunting, raw foot-pounds is a poor way to assess lethality/ethicality, since there are other factors that have significant effects, like penetration/expansion based on bullet geometry. Dukeofstuff's numbers are off to begin with. 7.62x39, the caliber fired by an AK-47, has around 1500ft*lbs of energy in soft-point hunting loads from a 16" barrel. For comparison, .223 is ~1200ft*lbs from the same barrel length, so they're very close to one another, with .223 having significantly better expansion in soft tissue. No idea where that 2100 number comes from.

Anyways, I find it really interesting to read about misdirection efforts in prior conflicts- the example in the OP of removing all the street signs is something that wouldn't be too effective in the age of satellite imagery, for example. Conversely, cyber-warfare is becoming an important element in misdirection, with GPS spoofing having been used in recent conflicts to compromise fire coordination or positioning.

 Vulcan wrote:
It's also worth noting that in this age of modern weapons, your room full of ARs and ammo won't do a whole lot of good against GPS-guided rounds from a battery-six of even light 75mm howitzers. Or a single tank, for that matter.

I'd have thought that after nearly twenty years of the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, people would start to recognize that howitzers, tanks, helicopters, and JDAMs aren't a trump card against insurgents with rifles. Those are all great when an unconventional force is operating in the open and you have intelligence/air superiority to preemptively engage, but helicopters can't patrol city blocks, tanks can't go door-to-door, and an AR will work just fine against a police officer or uniformed soldier.

I don't disagree about most Americans not having the stomach for prolonged insurgency, but we've had too many soldiers and .govs killed by half-century-old AKs wielded by illiterate goat herders for me to buy the idea that high-tech weapons alone can crush an insurgency on its home turf.

 Jjohnso11 wrote:
Usually the victor gets to determine who plays in the war crime trials.

True. All the more reason to pull out all the stops on the defense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:
Re: hunting, raw foot-pounds is a poor way to assess lethality/ethicality, since there are other factors that have significant effects, like penetration/expansion based on bullet geometry. Dukeofstuff's numbers are off to begin with. 7.62x39, the caliber fired by an AK-47, has around 1500ft*lbs of energy in soft-point hunting loads from a 16" barrel. For comparison, .223 is ~1200ft*lbs from the same barrel length, so they're very close to one another, with .223 having significantly better expansion in soft tissue. No idea where that 2100 number comes from.

Anyways, I find it really interesting to read about misdirection efforts in prior conflicts- the example in the OP of removing all the street signs is something that wouldn't be too effective in the age of satellite imagery, for example. Conversely, cyber-warfare is becoming an important element in misdirection, with GPS spoofing having been used in recent conflicts to compromise fire coordination or positioning.

 Vulcan wrote:
It's also worth noting that in this age of modern weapons, your room full of ARs and ammo won't do a whole lot of good against GPS-guided rounds from a battery-six of even light 75mm howitzers. Or a single tank, for that matter.

I'd have thought that after nearly twenty years of the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, people would start to recognize that howitzers, tanks, helicopters, and JDAMs aren't a trump card against insurgents with rifles. Those are all great when an unconventional force is operating in the open and you have intelligence/air superiority to preemptively engage, but helicopters can't patrol city blocks, tanks can't go door-to-door, and an AR will work just fine against a police officer or uniformed soldier.

I don't disagree about most Americans not having the stomach for prolonged insurgency, but we've had too many soldiers and .govs killed by half-century-old AKs wielded by illiterate goat herders for me to buy the idea that high-tech weapons alone can crush an insurgency on its home turf.

Let's bear in mind the Americans most likely to own lots of guns and become 'insurgents' have cracked after less than two months of isolation in their own homes. They wouldn't last two weeks in genuine insurgency conditions.

 Vulcan wrote:


Let's bear in mind the Americans most likely to own lots of guns and become 'insurgents' have cracked after less than two months of isolation in their own homes. They wouldn't last two weeks in genuine insurgency conditions.

Not really the same situation.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:


Let's bear in mind the Americans most likely to own lots of guns and become 'insurgents' have cracked after less than two months of isolation in their own homes. They wouldn't last two weeks in genuine insurgency conditions.

Not really the same situation.

No, it's not. COVID is likely to kill far more people than a typical occupation if not contained and controlled properly.

Back on subject South Africa has historically relied on the fact that any foe has to come by land over vast distances, therefore any attacker has to move hundreds and hundreds of miles on a few roads through the veldt.

And more crucially any assault would rely on very long supply lines along said roads, so in response South Africa has many wheeled AFVs (IFVs(with a wide range of weapons including 90mm cannons, mortars and dedicated ATGM vehicles) mobile artillery) which can drive to the battlefield rather quickly and with less logistical strain than tracked vehicles(they'll break out the 50 year old centurions if gak gets heavy,) to respond to a developing situation.

What's more the Rooikat (Africans:red cat, (caracal)) armoured car is designed to basically travel extreme ranges across said velt, is mine protected and armed with a 76mm cannon which might not sound impressive in today's world but you know it's more than adequate for brewing up soft skin trucks and any kind of convoy escort vehicle, becasue you can't have tanks everywhere. And with a 76mm you can store a heap of ammo in comparison to a 105 or 120.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So yeah, distance.

 OldMate wrote:
Back on subject South Africa has historically relied on the fact that any foe has to come by land over vast distances, therefore any attacker has to move hundreds and hundreds of miles on a few roads through the veldt.

And more crucially any assault would rely on very long supply lines along said roads, so in response South Africa has many wheeled AFVs (IFVs(with a wide range of weapons including 90mm cannons, mortars and dedicated ATGM vehicles) mobile artillery) which can drive to the battlefield rather quickly and with less logistical strain than tracked vehicles(they'll break out the 50 year old centurions if gak gets heavy,) to respond to a developing situation.

What's more the Rooikat (Africans:red cat, (caracal)) armoured car is designed to basically travel extreme ranges across said velt, is mine protected and armed with a 76mm cannon which might not sound impressive in today's world but you know it's more than adequate for brewing up soft skin trucks and any kind of convoy escort vehicle, becasue you can't have tanks everywhere. And with a 76mm you can store a heap of ammo in comparison to a 105 or 120.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So yeah, distance.

We only produced 26 Olifants Mk2s, 4 of which are used, 21 of which are stored and 1 got dropped off a flatbed a while ago and it looked fairly terminal. https://henrileriche.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/olifant-main-battle-tank-falls-off-trailer/

That being said I've worked with both the artillery guys and the Gripen/Hawk/Rooivalk guys and they are very capable. While we do have a lot of dead weight the pointy end guys are sharp as ever. While the SANDF probably isn't up to the level of the Bush War SADF I wouldn't want to invade SA. There's also the benefit that not many of our neighbours will want to invade us.

The idea of "leave behind saboteurs" is a decent one IMHO. The advent of night vision and thermal imaging has made their jobs harder though.

In the 80s Australia had really good submarine fleet(the old Collins class) that was very suited to operating in shallow water and had indigenously developed(we asked America and Britain, but no-one wanted to share) stealth tiles. Glued them on with the glue they use on road reflectors, never lost a tile.

They'd be ideal for hitting convoys even in the shallow waters of the Indonesian and New Guinean islands, and if need be on Australia's coastline.
In exercises they were able to slip US anti submarine patrols around the enterance of Shoalwater bay(which is really narrow) and do a lot of damage to amphibious assault ships.

Also in the 60-80s we had Canberras, then replaced by the F-111s which were basically maintained becasue they could fly over Jakarta (Yeah, for a long time Indonesia was our biggest(still is) and most aggressive(not so much at the moment, we're getting along pretty well) neighbor, so if anyone was going to invade us... we'd be outnumbered in a very big way), and drop a nuke.

I mean we fought Indonesian militias in Malaysia and then East Timor, and East Timor was only twenty four or so years ago.