Some more ridiculous ideas from mollwollfumble, following on from the wind powered submarine. Not a good idea because a submarine has to be heavy and a yacht has to be light.

I’ve heard how a British swordfish got the Bismarck, torpedo on the rudder. The swordfish was a biplane, so slow that it was too slow for the Bismarck’s guns to track. Which puts me in mind of the fact that prop aircraft in general and biplanes in particular, can land and take off at very much slower speeds than a jet. Making these antiques a good option for aircraft carriers and makeshift runways. You can make a runway for a biplane much faster than a runway for a jet.

Then I was hearing yesterday about how the Finns defeated the Russians using mass-produced Molotov cocktails as anti-tank weapons. A low tech solution to a relatively high tech problem.

I also heard yesterday that the world’s largest cargo plane, the Beluga, can only carry 20 cars. That’s a tiny number, nowhere near enough for a frontal assault. But suppose those large planes carried motorcycle parachutists instead. You could fit as many motorcycles as parachutists in a plane. One the ground the massed motorcycles would have a great advantage over infantry, they would be like the new cavalry. A major problem in war is crossing rivers. But we know from Mythbusters that motorcycles can drive fast over the top of water – meaning that motorcycle cavalry could cross a river anywhere, without warning or the need for a ford or bridge or heavy amphibious vehicles.

Another thing a cargo plane could carry is many hundreds of microlights. Adapt a microlight to carry weapons and use en masse (away from anti-aircraft guns).

And there’s Ziva’s saying to keep in mind, too. “A knife doesn’t run out of bullets”.

Any other examples of low tech as a possible solution to modern warfare?

The problem with ground attack aircraft these days is that plenty of guerrilla armies have access to portable short-range anti-aircraft missiles. As long as they provide a heat source for the missile to lock on to like a hot exhaust pipe then a slow flying aircraft is probably more vulnerable to being shot down than in the old days when they faced gun/artillery type AA.

The Beluga type cargo planes are not really a good comparison for freight. They tend to be made to carry relatively light but oversize cargo like aircraft fuselage sections or empty rocket stages. There are a few types around that can carry up to a heavy tank, plus all sorts of other equipment. They can usually land on improvised dirt runways or grass field too, in a much shorter space than an equivalent commercial airliner. Look up the Airbus A400 or Lockheed C-17. They are quite impressive. Also there are quite handy Russian/Ukrainian designs but I am not sure if they are still in production.

party_pants said:

The problem with ground attack aircraft these days is that plenty of guerrilla armies have access to portable short-range anti-aircraft missiles. As long as they provide a heat source for the missile to lock on to like a hot exhaust pipe then a slow flying aircraft is probably more vulnerable to being shot down than in the old days when they faced gun/artillery type AA.

…plus there are radar controlled AA guns. Takes out the human judgement factor.

party_pants said:

party_pants said:

The problem with ground attack aircraft these days is that plenty of guerrilla armies have access to portable short-range anti-aircraft missiles. As long as they provide a heat source for the missile to lock on to like a hot exhaust pipe then a slow flying aircraft is probably more vulnerable to being shot down than in the old days when they faced gun/artillery type AA.

…plus there are radar controlled AA guns. Takes out the human judgement factor.

Geurillas though don’t generally have as much might to toss back. Yes the Afghan tunnels made the Taliban able to duck and run but the yanks tossed a MOB at them.

mollwollfumble said:

The swordfish was a biplane, so slow that it was too slow for the Bismarck’s guns to track.

I also heard yesterday that the world’s largest cargo plane, the Beluga, can only carry 20 cars.

Both incorrect sorry.
The slower the target, the easier it is to hit. I suspect that the Swordfish’s may have been difficult to hit if they flew very close to the water.
The largest freighter plane in the world is the AN-225 Mirya. The freight volume is 43.35 m long × 6.4 m wide × 4.4 m tall, so if you take a car as being about 6 metres long, 2 metres wide, and a bit under 2 metres tall you could fit 28 cars inside it, and it also wouldn’t be anywhere near it’s payload capacity. Maybe another 2 cars sideways on the ends, so maybe 30 cars all-up.

roughbarked said:

party_pants said:

party_pants said:

The problem with ground attack aircraft these days is that plenty of guerrilla armies have access to portable short-range anti-aircraft missiles. As long as they provide a heat source for the missile to lock on to like a hot exhaust pipe then a slow flying aircraft is probably more vulnerable to being shot down than in the old days when they faced gun/artillery type AA.

…plus there are radar controlled AA guns. Takes out the human judgement factor.

Geurillas though don’t generally have as much might to toss back. Yes the Afghan tunnels made the Taliban able to duck and run but the yanks tossed a MOB at them.

They fucked over the Soviets in the 80s using American made Stingers. The Soviets had pretty much everything from slow helicopters to high tech supersonic bombers.

Spiny Norman said:

mollwollfumble said:

The swordfish was a biplane, so slow that it was too slow for the Bismarck’s guns to track.

I also heard yesterday that the world’s largest cargo plane, the Beluga, can only carry 20 cars.

Both incorrect sorry.
The slower the target, the easier it is to hit. I suspect that the Swordfish’s may have been difficult to hit if they flew very close to the water.
The largest freighter plane in the world is the AN-225 Mirya. The freight volume is 43.35 m long × 6.4 m wide × 4.4 m tall, so if you take a car as being about 6 metres long, 2 metres wide, and a bit under 2 metres tall you could fit 28 cars inside it, and it also wouldn’t be anywhere near it’s payload capacity. Maybe another 2 cars sideways on the ends, so maybe 30 cars all-up.

Actually make that 42 cars! Maybe 44 even -> 7 cars long, three rows wide, two cars high, plus another couple tucked in at the ends.

party_pants said:

roughbarked said:

party_pants said:

…plus there are radar controlled AA guns. Takes out the human judgement factor.

Geurillas though don’t generally have as much might to toss back. Yes the Afghan tunnels made the Taliban able to duck and run but the yanks tossed a MOB at them.

They fucked over the Soviets in the 80s using American made Stingers. The Soviets had pretty much everything from slow helicopters to high tech supersonic bombers.

Not arguing that they weren’t effective. The yanks were probably also funding their work against the Russians?

Spiny Norman said:

Spiny Norman said:

mollwollfumble said:

The swordfish was a biplane, so slow that it was too slow for the Bismarck’s guns to track.

I also heard yesterday that the world’s largest cargo plane, the Beluga, can only carry 20 cars.

Both incorrect sorry.
The slower the target, the easier it is to hit. I suspect that the Swordfish’s may have been difficult to hit if they flew very close to the water.
The largest freighter plane in the world is the AN-225 Mirya. The freight volume is 43.35 m long × 6.4 m wide × 4.4 m tall, so if you take a car as being about 6 metres long, 2 metres wide, and a bit under 2 metres tall you could fit 28 cars inside it, and it also wouldn’t be anywhere near it’s payload capacity. Maybe another 2 cars sideways on the ends, so maybe 30 cars all-up.

Actually make that 42 cars! Maybe 44 even -> 7 cars long, three rows wide, two cars high, plus another couple tucked in at the ends.

Maybe the Bismark’s guns could not lower that far.

roughbarked said:

party_pants said:

roughbarked said:

Geurillas though don’t generally have as much might to toss back. Yes the Afghan tunnels made the Taliban able to duck and run but the yanks tossed a MOB at them.

They fucked over the Soviets in the 80s using American made Stingers. The Soviets had pretty much everything from slow helicopters to high tech supersonic bombers.

Not arguing that they weren’t effective. The yanks were probably also funding their work against the Russians?

Yes. The CIA supplied them with American missiles via Pakistan.

Then when the Western forces intervened in Afghanistan they found themselves targeted with similar missiles of a Russian design made in and supplied by Iran.

party_pants said:

roughbarked said:

party_pants said:

They fucked over the Soviets in the 80s using American made Stingers. The Soviets had pretty much everything from slow helicopters to high tech supersonic bombers.

Not arguing that they weren’t effective. The yanks were probably also funding their work against the Russians?

Yes. The CIA supplied them with American missiles via Pakistan.

Then when the Western forces intervened in Afghanistan they found themselves targeted with similar missiles of a Russian design made in and supplied by Iran.

What goes around comes around?

roughbarked said:

party_pants said:

roughbarked said:

Not arguing that they weren’t effective. The yanks were probably also funding their work against the Russians?

Yes. The CIA supplied them with American missiles via Pakistan.

Then when the Western forces intervened in Afghanistan they found themselves targeted with similar missiles of a Russian design made in and supplied by Iran.

What goes around comes around?

it’s a bit like that, yeah :(

party_pants said:

roughbarked said:

party_pants said:

Yes. The CIA supplied them with American missiles via Pakistan.

Then when the Western forces intervened in Afghanistan they found themselves targeted with similar missiles of a Russian design made in and supplied by Iran.

What goes around comes around?

it’s a bit like that, yeah :(

They say the same about money, could there be a link you reckon?

There are only a handful of countries who can maintain a hitech military during a protracted conflict, those countries are the ones who make the hitech equipment. Countries like Australia that buy the hitech equipment will be out the back door pretty quickly dues to losses and damage that they cant replace.

Peak Warming Man said:

There are only a handful of countries who can maintain a hitech military during a protracted conflict, those countries are the ones who make the hitech equipment. Countries like Australia that buy the hitech equipment will be out the back door pretty quickly dues to losses and damage that they cant replace.

That is basically what I was saying. Japan tried to start by attemptiing to cripple the US navy at Pearl Harbour. Didn’t turn out well for them.

Fit a long range air to air / air to ground missile to a Lancaster.

A Lancaster could a few monster air to air missiles to defeat the latest tech ie you can shoot from a much further distance. You can use airborne radar to find and direct a long range missile to its target.

wookiemeister said:

Fit a long range air to air / air to ground missile to a Lancaster.

A Lancaster could a few monster air to air missiles to defeat the latest tech ie you can shoot from a much further distance. You can use airborne radar to find and direct a long range missile to its target.

Glad you said A lancaster. Not many of them still flying.

a Lancaster could be fitted with radar directed rapid fire machine guns to take down air to air missiles/ and also see off fighter jets.

roughbarked said:

wookiemeister said:

Fit a long range air to air / air to ground missile to a Lancaster.

A Lancaster could a few monster air to air missiles to defeat the latest tech ie you can shoot from a much further distance. You can use airborne radar to find and direct a long range missile to its target.

Glad you said A lancaster. Not many of them still flying.

You’d use modern turboprops and carbon fibre replicas, its a tried and tested design.

A modern Lancaster might only need 2/ 3 people.

The third person might run the defence systems

wookiemeister said:

a Lancaster could be fitted with radar directed rapid fire machine guns to take down air to air missiles/ and also see off fighter jets.

If only Hitler had had as many ME 262’s as Lancasters, he might have stopped them bombing him?

roughbarked said:

wookiemeister said:

a Lancaster could be fitted with radar directed rapid fire machine guns to take down air to air missiles/ and also see off fighter jets.

If only Hitler had had as many ME 262’s as Lancasters, he might have stopped them bombing him?

Unlikely.

Lancasters bombed by night

Unless the me262 had radar on it it would find it hard to find them.

Release chaff and the radar screens would have been blinded

wookiemeister said:

roughbarked said:

wookiemeister said:

a Lancaster could be fitted with radar directed rapid fire machine guns to take down air to air missiles/ and also see off fighter jets.

If only Hitler had had as many ME 262’s as Lancasters, he might have stopped them bombing him?

Unlikely.

Lancasters bombed by night

Unless the me262 had radar on it it would find it hard to find them.

Release chaff and the radar screens would have been blinded

By the time the ME 262 was flying there had been heaps of German planes fitted up as nightfighters. They also knew the signature of said aluminium foil strips.

turbo props probably require less and cheaper maintenance on them. If you were flying in the stratosphere then you’d fit jets.

These Lancasters would be in a loitering role to see off strategic bombers, fighter jets and maybe long range air to ground glide bombs

wookiemeister said:

Fit a long range air to air / air to ground missile to a Lancaster.

A Lancaster could a few monster air to air missiles to defeat the latest tech ie you can shoot from a much further distance. You can use airborne radar to find and direct a long range missile to its target.

Anti-aircraft missiles need to be as maneuverable as possible, otherwise a target can avoid them with hard turns. Big missiles are less effective than smaller ones. The best air-to-air missile is the European Meteor, which is about three and a half metres long and weighs less than 200 kg. But it can travel at Mach 4 and turn at 20G. Range of a couple hundred km under ideal conditions. Fits on a small lightweight figther like a Swedish Gripen. No contest with a POS Lancaster.

wookiemeister said:

turbo props probably require less and cheaper maintenance on them. If you were flying in the stratosphere then you’d fit jets.

These Lancasters would be in a loitering role to see off strategic bombers, fighter jets and maybe long range air to ground glide bombs

So what is wrong with using B 52’s?

roughbarked said:

wookiemeister said:

roughbarked said:

If only Hitler had had as many ME 262’s as Lancasters, he might have stopped them bombing him?

Unlikely.

Lancasters bombed by night

Unless the me262 had radar on it it would find it hard to find them.

Release chaff and the radar screens would have been blinded

By the time the ME 262 was flying there had been heaps of German planes fitted up as nightfighters. They also knew the signature of said aluminium foil strips.

Yeah but no doubt jamming devices had also been built ( or would have been built if the problem got out of hand)

The Luftwaffe was being dismantled daily by swarms of mustangs and spits

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

Fit a long range air to air / air to ground missile to a Lancaster.

A Lancaster could a few monster air to air missiles to defeat the latest tech ie you can shoot from a much further distance. You can use airborne radar to find and direct a long range missile to its target.

Anti-aircraft missiles need to be as maneuverable as possible, otherwise a target can avoid them with hard turns. Big missiles are less effective than smaller ones. The best air-to-air missile is the European Meteor, which is about three and a half metres long and weighs less than 200 kg. But it can travel at Mach 4 and turn at 20G. Range of a couple hundred km under ideal conditions. Fits on a small lightweight figther like a Swedish Gripen. No contest with a POS Lancaster.

Try dodging 4 long range missiles fired at once from only 1 lancaster, what if you had 3 lancasters firing at once and flying back as another 3 were advancing to a firing position well beyond the fighters.

The lancasters would be fitted with rapid fire machine guns designed to shoot down missiles

roughbarked said:

wookiemeister said:

turbo props probably require less and cheaper maintenance on them. If you were flying in the stratosphere then you’d fit jets.

These Lancasters would be in a loitering role to see off strategic bombers, fighter jets and maybe long range air to ground glide bombs

So what is wrong with using B 52’s?

You only use b52s for water bombing

wookiemeister said:

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

Fit a long range air to air / air to ground missile to a Lancaster.

A Lancaster could a few monster air to air missiles to defeat the latest tech ie you can shoot from a much further distance. You can use airborne radar to find and direct a long range missile to its target.

Anti-aircraft missiles need to be as maneuverable as possible, otherwise a target can avoid them with hard turns. Big missiles are less effective than smaller ones. The best air-to-air missile is the European Meteor, which is about three and a half metres long and weighs less than 200 kg. But it can travel at Mach 4 and turn at 20G. Range of a couple hundred km under ideal conditions. Fits on a small lightweight figther like a Swedish Gripen. No contest with a POS Lancaster.

Try dodging 4 long range missiles fired at once from only 1 lancaster, what if you had 3 lancasters firing at once and flying back as another 3 were advancing to a firing position well beyond the fighters.

The lancasters would be fitted with rapid fire machine guns designed to shoot down missiles

Look man, This fantasy of better and better weapons was well described by Hermann Hesse in his book; If the war goes on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_the_War_Goes_On_…

wookiemeister said:

roughbarked said:

wookiemeister said:

turbo props probably require less and cheaper maintenance on them. If you were flying in the stratosphere then you’d fit jets.

These Lancasters would be in a loitering role to see off strategic bombers, fighter jets and maybe long range air to ground glide bombs

So what is wrong with using B 52’s?

You only use b52s for water bombing

or carpet bombing or Napalm?

You could have a hercules fitted with hundreds of air to air missiles.

Try dodging that blizzard

wookiemeister said:

You could have a hercules fitted with hundreds of air to air missiles.

Try dodging that blizzard

They do have Hercules fitted with all that stuff

Thanks for feedback.

30 cars in a cargo plane still isn’t enough for a frontal assault, or for anything much. Perhaps if you have a car/truck design that can be flat packed and assembled on the ground. I still prefer 450 motorbikes to 30 cars, though.

Plenty of low tech was successful against high tech in Vietnam. Including hand-dug tunnels and booby traps.

>Any other examples of low tech as a possible solution to modern warfare?

does that include low tech attributes or ways of culture, that could be understood to be defensive in that they tend to, perhaps mostly incidentally, result in warfare being less likely, naturally parry against war

I mean, to get started, all you need do is add a comma, and put avoidance on the end of the thread title, it’d then read low tech, modern military avoidance, granted it’s not a perfect word formulation maybe, but it’s good enough in context

I don’t know where to begin in this.

I’ll start by saying that, for a few years, i worked in precisely this area.

The deal was to look for improvements to military equipment and technology. Specifically, for field-engineered or extemporaneous improvements, adaptations, or outright inventions which could be incorporated into industry practice and manufacture.

Looking for lash-ups that could be made into production items.

There’s so much in this thread that i think needs to be addressed that i’ll have to do it bit by bit.

I’ll get back to it later.

captain_spalding said:

I don’t know where to begin in this.

I’ll start by saying that, for a few years, i worked in precisely this area.

The deal was to look for improvements to military equipment and technology. Specifically, for field-engineered or extemporaneous improvements, adaptations, or outright inventions which could be incorporated into industry practice and manufacture.

Looking for lash-ups that could be made into production items.

There’s so much in this thread that i think needs to be addressed that i’ll have to do it bit by bit.

I’ll get back to it later.

:-) Looking forward to it.

One I remember hearing about was research into immobilising tanks by shoving a potato-like object up the gaspipe.

mollwollfumble said:

captain_spalding said:

I don’t know where to begin in this.

I’ll start by saying that, for a few years, i worked in precisely this area.

The deal was to look for improvements to military equipment and technology. Specifically, for field-engineered or extemporaneous improvements, adaptations, or outright inventions which could be incorporated into industry practice and manufacture.

Looking for lash-ups that could be made into production items.

There’s so much in this thread that i think needs to be addressed that i’ll have to do it bit by bit.

I’ll get back to it later.

:-) Looking forward to it.

One I remember hearing about was research into immobilising tanks by shoving a potato-like object up the gaspipe.

We’ll start with ‘a submarine has to be heavy’.

To say this is to utterly misunderstand submarines.

Submarines have to be buoyant. They function by varying that buoyancy.

Admit water to the ballast tanks: submarines, gets heavier, submerges.

Use compressed air to expel water from tanks: submarine gets lighter and rises.

Submarines have to be both heavy and light, according to the situation.

I have no doubt that a submarine could be fitted with sails and made to sail.

Large sailing ships were no featherweights, but they sailed quite well.

The problem with rigging a submarine to sail is: what do you do with all that rigging and sails when it’s time to submerge?

Submarines are not spacious vessels, and the storage of mast. rigging, and various large sails would present problems.

The idea of submerging quickly if surprised during war would go right out the window.

mollwollfumble said:

captain_spalding said:

I don’t know where to begin in this.

I’ll start by saying that, for a few years, i worked in precisely this area.

The deal was to look for improvements to military equipment and technology. Specifically, for field-engineered or extemporaneous improvements, adaptations, or outright inventions which could be incorporated into industry practice and manufacture.

Looking for lash-ups that could be made into production items.

There’s so much in this thread that i think needs to be addressed that i’ll have to do it bit by bit.

I’ll get back to it later.

:-) Looking forward to it.

One I remember hearing about was research into immobilising tanks by shoving a potato-like object up the gaspipe.

The Panzerfaust was pretty low tech.

roughbarked said:

wookiemeister said:

You could have a hercules fitted with hundreds of air to air missiles.

Try dodging that blizzard

They do have Hercules fitted with all that stuff

Without checking the link

You can think outside the box.

Australia’s latest dud subs programme won’t be combat ready for ten years. Just imagine you didn’t have fools in command.

wookiemeister said:

roughbarked said:

wookiemeister said:

You could have a hercules fitted with hundreds of air to air missiles.

Try dodging that blizzard

They do have Hercules fitted with all that stuff

Without checking the link

You can think outside the box.

Australia’s latest dud subs programme won’t be combat ready for ten years. Just imagine you didn’t have fools in command.

I don’t. Nobody commands me.

Moll – Boeing started a design study on just the very aircraft you were thinking about – the Boeing Pelican

Spiny Norman said:

Moll – Boeing started a design study on just the very aircraft you were thinking about – the Boeing Pelican

You wouldn’t want a whale to breach at the wrong time…

furious said:

Spiny Norman said:

Moll – Boeing started a design study on just the very aircraft you were thinking about – the Boeing Pelican

You wouldn’t want a whale to breach at the wrong time…

LOL

Nice thinking.

:)

Paper planes

Ian said:

Paper planes

All I wanna do is *bang bang bang bang*
And *click ka-ching*
And take your money

Fairey Swordfish.

Went into service in the mid-1930s.

They were very sturdy aircraft, with low take-off speed, low stalling speed, very good lift, good loiter capabilities.

They were tough and reliable, rather manoeuvrable, but were definitely not fast.

Mrs S’s uncle Norman was in a Swordfish in the Royal Navy’s attack on the Italian fleet at Taranto in November 1940.

He said that, as torpedo bombers and in common with every other torpedo bomber, the tactic was, firstly, surprise, and then to get as low as you could and stay there on the run in. Your best hope for survival was that the gunners wouldn’t be able to easily discern you against the sea or any land in the background.

Far from being ‘too slow to track’, the Swordfish was just a sitting duck if the gunners got a half-decent look at you.

Swordfish were in production until late in the war. They proved to be rather better at the job than their intended replacement, the Albacore.

Michael V said:

furious said:

Spiny Norman said:

Moll – Boeing started a design study on just the very aircraft you were thinking about – the Boeing Pelican

You wouldn’t want a whale to breach at the wrong time…

LOL

Nice thinking.

:)

Here’s another technologies last gasp

I remember reading how it was questioned if a $200,000 missile blowing up what amounts to not much more than a wooden shack was worth the cost (human life excluded)

You could cost a superior armed nation so much money in a war with low tech cheap attacks they give up and leave achieving almost nothing

Afghanistan comes to mind

captain_spalding said:

I don’t know where to begin in this.

I’ll start by saying that, for a few years, i worked in precisely this area.

The deal was to look for improvements to military equipment and technology. Specifically, for field-engineered or extemporaneous improvements, adaptations, or outright inventions which could be incorporated into industry practice and manufacture.

Looking for lash-ups that could be made into production items.

There’s so much in this thread that i think needs to be addressed that i’ll have to do it bit by bit.

I’ll get back to it later.

Adding bolt on guidance kits to turn dumb bombs into smart bomb

Cymek said:

I remember reading how it was questioned if a $200,000 missile blowing up what amounts to not much more than a wooden shack was worth the cost (human life excluded)

You could cost a superior armed nation so much money in a war with low tech cheap attacks they give up and leave achieving almost nothing

Afghanistan comes to mind

Vietcong tunnels with a candle burning under an air hole to provide moving air ventilation.

mollwollfumble said:

captain_spalding said:

I don’t know where to begin in this.

I’ll start by saying that, for a few years, i worked in precisely this area.

The deal was to look for improvements to military equipment and technology. Specifically, for field-engineered or extemporaneous improvements, adaptations, or outright inventions which could be incorporated into industry practice and manufacture.

Looking for lash-ups that could be made into production items.

There’s so much in this thread that i think needs to be addressed that i’ll have to do it bit by bit.

I’ll get back to it later.

:-) Looking forward to it.

One I remember hearing about was research into immobilising tanks by shoving a potato-like object up the gaspipe.

captain_spalding said:

mollwollfumble said:

captain_spalding said:

I don’t know where to begin in this.

I’ll start by saying that, for a few years, i worked in precisely this area.

The deal was to look for improvements to military equipment and technology. Specifically, for field-engineered or extemporaneous improvements, adaptations, or outright inventions which could be incorporated into industry practice and manufacture.

Looking for lash-ups that could be made into production items.

There’s so much in this thread that i think needs to be addressed that i’ll have to do it bit by bit.

I’ll get back to it later.

:-) Looking forward to it.

One I remember hearing about was research into immobilising tanks by shoving a potato-like object up the gaspipe.

Damn it I didn’t read that far

Cymek said:

captain_spalding said:

mollwollfumble said:

:-) Looking forward to it.

One I remember hearing about was research into immobilising tanks by shoving a potato-like object up the gaspipe.

Damn it I didn’t read that far

Prawns in the hubcaps.

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

captain_spalding said:

Damn it I didn’t read that far

Prawns in the hubcaps.

They are worse in the heater duct.

Cymek said:

I remember reading how it was questioned if a $200,000 missile blowing up what amounts to not much more than a wooden shack was worth the cost (human life excluded)

You could cost a superior armed nation so much money in a war with low tech cheap attacks they give up and leave achieving almost nothing

Afghanistan comes to mind

North Vietnam’s General Võ Nguyên Giáp had the same idea.

He knew that America wouldn’t stand for endless casualties forever, whereas he and the Nth Viet govt were quite prepared to do that, if that was the price of victory. They knew also that, if America was prepared to accept the necessary numbers of dead and wounded, then, coupled with the US technical superiority, there was no way that Nth Vietnam could win. An American victory would be inevitable.

So, Nth Viet fed and endless stream of people into the grinder, and waited to see what would happen. As it was, their bet was correct, and American support withered in the face of ongoing losses with little discernible gain. All the Nth viets had to do was stay in the game.

They weren’t the first. The idea of a bloodbath to force the opposition into negotiation was the principle behind the Japanese determination to use children and old people, as well as soldiers, to defend Japan from invasion in WW2. The atomic bombs changed that.

Cymek said:

captain_spalding said:

I don’t know where to begin in this.

I’ll start by saying that, for a few years, i worked in precisely this area.

The deal was to look for improvements to military equipment and technology. Specifically, for field-engineered or extemporaneous improvements, adaptations, or outright inventions which could be incorporated into industry practice and manufacture.

Looking for lash-ups that could be made into production items.

There’s so much in this thread that i think needs to be addressed that i’ll have to do it bit by bit.

I’ll get back to it later.

Adding bolt on guidance kits to turn dumb bombs into smart bomb

Can be/is being done done. Has been for quite a while.

Tamb said:

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

Damn it I didn’t read that far

Prawns in the hubcaps.

They are worse in the heater duct.

Either way, they are going to pull the whole car to bits looking for it.

captain_spalding said:

Cymek said:

captain_spalding said:

I don’t know where to begin in this.

I’ll start by saying that, for a few years, i worked in precisely this area.

The deal was to look for improvements to military equipment and technology. Specifically, for field-engineered or extemporaneous improvements, adaptations, or outright inventions which could be incorporated into industry practice and manufacture.

Looking for lash-ups that could be made into production items.

There’s so much in this thread that i think needs to be addressed that i’ll have to do it bit by bit.

I’ll get back to it later.

Adding bolt on guidance kits to turn dumb bombs into smart bomb

Can be/is being done done. Has been for quite a while.

Yes that’s what I meant, upgrading an existing bomb with off the shelf technology

Cymek said:

captain_spalding said:

Cymek said:

Adding bolt on guidance kits to turn dumb bombs into smart bomb

Can be/is being done done. Has been for quite a while.

Yes that’s what I meant, upgrading an existing bomb with off the shelf technology

The VC used to turn the US’s Claymores 180° then spook the Americans into firing them with resulting friendly fire casualties.

Tamb said:

Cymek said:

captain_spalding said:

Can be/is being done done. Has been for quite a while.

Yes that’s what I meant, upgrading an existing bomb with off the shelf technology

The VC used to turn the US’s Claymores 180° then spook the Americans into firing them with resulting friendly fire casualties.

Coincidently today is Long Tan day.

Peak Warming Man said:

Tamb said:

Cymek said:

Yes that’s what I meant, upgrading an existing bomb with off the shelf technology

The VC used to turn the US’s Claymores 180° then spook the Americans into firing them with resulting friendly fire casualties.

Coincidently today is Long Tan day.

Doffs hat.

Tamb said:

Cymek said:

captain_spalding said:

Can be/is being done done. Has been for quite a while.

Yes that’s what I meant, upgrading an existing bomb with off the shelf technology

The VC used to turn the US’s Claymores 180° then spook the Americans into firing them with resulting friendly fire casualties.

Wouldn’t that void the warranty

Cymek said:

Tamb said:

Cymek said:

Yes that’s what I meant, upgrading an existing bomb with off the shelf technology

The VC used to turn the US’s Claymores 180° then spook the Americans into firing them with resulting friendly fire casualties.

Wouldn’t that void the warranty

:) See. Now that was funny.

Cymek said:

Yes that’s what I meant, upgrading an existing bomb with off the shelf technology

Technological progress is often measured in millimetric steps.

We use to look for all sorts of things. It might be a small modification to a M1956 harness which allowed an additional, or a newer, item to be added on or better carried than before. It might be a field stove that someone had knocked up which cooked rations easier/better than existing types, things like that.

Every bit of improvement increases overall efficiency, and leads to bigger, more ‘significant’ changes.

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

Tamb said:

The VC used to turn the US’s Claymores 180° then spook the Americans into firing them with resulting friendly fire casualties.

Wouldn’t that void the warranty

:) See. Now that was funny.

Yes I thought it was a decent effort

Peak Warming Man said:

Tamb said:

Cymek said:

Yes that’s what I meant, upgrading an existing bomb with off the shelf technology

The VC used to turn the US’s Claymores 180° then spook the Americans into firing them with resulting friendly fire casualties.

Coincidently today is Long Tan day.

Thanks for that.

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

Tamb said:

The VC used to turn the US’s Claymores 180° then spook the Americans into firing them with resulting friendly fire casualties.

Wouldn’t that void the warranty

:) See. Now that was funny.

An outcome best to avoid.

Cymek said:

Tamb said:

Cymek said:

Yes that’s what I meant, upgrading an existing bomb with off the shelf technology

The VC used to turn the US’s Claymores 180° then spook the Americans into firing them with resulting friendly fire casualties.

Wouldn’t that void the warranty

No, because it says on them ‘Front towards Enemy’. Not ‘back towards owner’. ‘Enemy’ is a subjective term, depending on who set it last.

captain_spalding said:

Cymek said:

Yes that’s what I meant, upgrading an existing bomb with off the shelf technology

Technological progress is often measured in millimetric steps.

We use to look for all sorts of things. It might be a small modification to a M1956 harness which allowed an additional, or a newer, item to be added on or better carried than before. It might be a field stove that someone had knocked up which cooked rations easier/better than existing types, things like that.

Every bit of improvement increases overall efficiency, and leads to bigger, more ‘significant’ changes.

Replacing the straight bolt with a bent one on British rifles. This allowed the soldiers to use the rifle without taking it from the aimed position.

I wonder if you could introduce pests to a military battlefield (assuming they aren’t already there) say like breed billions of disease carrying mosquitos and release they could if nothing else be a distraction.

Cymek said:

I wonder if you could introduce pests to a military battlefield (assuming they aren’t already there) say like breed billions of disease carrying mosquitos and release they could if nothing else be a distraction.

Insects, like poison gas tend to attack your side as well as the enemy.
It does remind me that some protestors are using leaf blowers to blow tear gas back toward the police.

Tamb said:

Cymek said:

I wonder if you could introduce pests to a military battlefield (assuming they aren’t already there) say like breed billions of disease carrying mosquitos and release they could if nothing else be a distraction.

Insects, like poison gas tend to attack your side as well as the enemy.
It does remind me that some protestors are using leaf blowers to blow tear gas back toward the police.

Like dogs with explosives trained to run under tanks…

Anti-tank dog

“They performed generally well on a single target but became confused after the target or location was changed and often returned to the operator with the bomb unreleased, which in a live situation would have killed both the dog and the operator”

mollwollfumble said:

Thanks for feedback.

30 cars in a cargo plane still isn’t enough for a frontal assault, or for anything much. Perhaps if you have a car/truck design that can be flat packed and assembled on the ground. I still prefer 450 motorbikes to 30 cars, though.

Plenty of low tech was successful against high tech in Vietnam. Including hand-dug tunnels and booby traps.

I think you need to look at what tech you’re up against. Cars are not much good on the battlefield, anything from a medium machine gun upwards can knock them out, they are soft targets. If you want to mount a frontal assault you need tanks and armored fighting vehicles. These take timeto organise, so you tend to get whole fleets of cargo aircraft doing a buildup for serval days or weeks before the troops have enough equipment to mount an assault. There is not really much scope for landing a plane and going straight into action. Some countries do maintain special forces that can parachute out of planes along with their vehicles and support equipment, but they are not really all that low tech.

It is all very well looking for low tech solutions, but if your opposition has plenty of medium or high tech stuff then it can become a bit pointless.

Tamb said:

Replacing the straight bolt with a bent one on British rifles. This allowed the soldiers to use the rifle without taking it from the aimed position.

You’re probably thinking of the Canadian Ross rifle.

It wasn’t a bad rifle, really. They can still be found in collections, and i’ve tried one. Well made, quite easy to use, accurate out to long ranges, and you can work the bolt very quickly. Fine target rifle.

But, they were not really rugged enough to tolerate operational use. They suffered from poor quality parts in some batches, and the bolt could be re-assembled in such a way that the rifle would fire, but the bolt wouldn’t lock. That meant that you copped the bolt in your face when it flew back from the receiver.

They weren’t the first straight-pull rifle. There was an earlier German or Austrian one.

Cymek said:

captain_spalding said:

I don’t know where to begin in this.

I’ll start by saying that, for a few years, i worked in precisely this area.

The deal was to look for improvements to military equipment and technology. Specifically, for field-engineered or extemporaneous improvements, adaptations, or outright inventions which could be incorporated into industry practice and manufacture.

Looking for lash-ups that could be made into production items.

There’s so much in this thread that i think needs to be addressed that i’ll have to do it bit by bit.

I’ll get back to it later.

Adding bolt on guidance kits to turn dumb bombs into smart bomb

Don’t use a bomb – that’s expensive

You put guidance on a barbecue gas container

When the container hits dirt all the kinetic energy gets converted into heat which then helps crack the container. The fuel vaporises into a space around the container then ignites.

Google BLEVE.

sibeen said:

Senior sprog has been making lemonade. The tree out the back is still chockers with fruit and the one out the front isn’t far off.

wookiemeister said:

Cymek said:

captain_spalding said:

I don’t know where to begin in this.

I’ll start by saying that, for a few years, i worked in precisely this area.

The deal was to look for improvements to military equipment and technology. Specifically, for field-engineered or extemporaneous improvements, adaptations, or outright inventions which could be incorporated into industry practice and manufacture.

Looking for lash-ups that could be made into production items.

There’s so much in this thread that i think needs to be addressed that i’ll have to do it bit by bit.

I’ll get back to it later.

Adding bolt on guidance kits to turn dumb bombs into smart bomb

Don’t use a bomb – that’s expensive

You put guidance on a barbecue gas container

When the container hits dirt all the kinetic energy gets converted into heat which then helps crack the container. The fuel vaporises into a space around the container then ignites.

Google BLEVE.

Doing that now.
A boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion (/ˈblɛviː/ BLEV-ee) is an explosion caused by the rupture of a vessel containing a pressurized liquid that has reached temperatures above its boiling point. e.g. with hydrocarbons and alcohols.

Maybe you’d install an inverted spike on the nose to help puncture the vessel. The spike punches through, compresses the mixture further heating it as well ??

You’d need to experiment

What about the idea of taking out a spy satellite’s optics with a powerful torch?

A laser can’t be used as an effective killing weapon but it could be used as a blinding weapon. Or a chemical explosion powered torch with parabolic mirror.

Set it up in the backyard to track spy satellites. That should be easy enough because any satellite observed that doesn’t have a published orbit is going to be a spy satellite. So computer control it to point at that satellite, and when the satellite comes around for a look just feed it a burst of light bright enough to fry the optics.

mollwollfumble said:

What about the idea of taking out a spy satellite’s optics with a powerful torch?

A laser can’t be used as an effective killing weapon but it could be used as a blinding weapon. Or a chemical explosion powered torch with parabolic mirror.

Set it up in the backyard to track spy satellites. That should be easy enough because any satellite observed that doesn’t have a published orbit is going to be a spy satellite. So computer control it to point at that satellite, and when the satellite comes around for a look just feed it a burst of light bright enough to fry the optics.

I’ve wondered about spy satellites is it an act of war to take them out when they orbit over your territory

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

What about the idea of taking out a spy satellite’s optics with a powerful torch?

A laser can’t be used as an effective killing weapon but it could be used as a blinding weapon. Or a chemical explosion powered torch with parabolic mirror.

Set it up in the backyard to track spy satellites. That should be easy enough because any satellite observed that doesn’t have a published orbit is going to be a spy satellite. So computer control it to point at that satellite, and when the satellite comes around for a look just feed it a burst of light bright enough to fry the optics.

I’ve wondered about spy satellites is it an act of war to take them out when they orbit over your territory

It’s a breach of a major treaty.

mollwollfumble said:

What about the idea of taking out a spy satellite’s optics with a powerful torch?

A laser can’t be used as an effective killing weapon but it could be used as a blinding weapon. Or a chemical explosion powered torch with parabolic mirror.

Kind-of already done.
Last year I read the story of Admiral Sandy Woodward and his experience commanding the British fleet when they took back the Falkland Islands from the Argentinians. He wrote that later in the campaign they lost a frigate to an fighter/bomber that popped-up from behind a hill where the staging area was on the western end of the main island. He said that the frigate was equipped with a laser that was designed to blind pilots that were doing that very thing. But for some reason the laser wasn’t used and they lost the ship to the bombs being delivered accurately enough.

For the directed explosions, that’s been able to be done for many decades, with shaped-charge warheads. The famous RPG – Rocket Propelled Grenade – isn’t a grenade but a shaped-charge unit that has a small rocket on the back that send it to the target. When the tip of the RPG touches the target, it triggers the shaped charge and that fires a plasma of copper (or other alloyed metal) in a fairly straight line, like a laser beam …. but nothing like the range of a laser, of course.
It could probably be scaled-up a fair bit to give the plasma jet a much longer range I guess.

“A laser can’t be used as an effective killing weapon “

sounds like quitter talk

dv said:

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

What about the idea of taking out a spy satellite’s optics with a powerful torch?

A laser can’t be used as an effective killing weapon but it could be used as a blinding weapon. Or a chemical explosion powered torch with parabolic mirror.

Set it up in the backyard to track spy satellites. That should be easy enough because any satellite observed that doesn’t have a published orbit is going to be a spy satellite. So computer control it to point at that satellite, and when the satellite comes around for a look just feed it a burst of light bright enough to fry the optics.

I’ve wondered about spy satellites is it an act of war to take them out when they orbit over your territory

It’s a breach of a major treaty.

It’s a breach of treaty to blow them up. But what about blinding them?

dv said:

“A laser can’t be used as an effective killing weapon “

sounds like quitter talk

The problem is that the laser heats the air in its path which defocuses the beam. The hotter the laser the worse the problem.

Obama hinted that the US had tried to get over that problem by using a bank of many low powered lasers together. But that would defocus the beam too – more slowly but over a larger area.

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

“A laser can’t be used as an effective killing weapon “

sounds like quitter talk

The problem is that the laser heats the air in its path which defocuses the beam. The hotter the laser the worse the problem.

Obama hinted that the US had tried to get over that problem by using a bank of many low powered lasers together. But that would defocus the beam too – more slowly but over a larger area.

Surely at close enough range you could put some hurt on ‘em

dv said:

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

What about the idea of taking out a spy satellite’s optics with a powerful torch?

A laser can’t be used as an effective killing weapon but it could be used as a blinding weapon. Or a chemical explosion powered torch with parabolic mirror.

Set it up in the backyard to track spy satellites. That should be easy enough because any satellite observed that doesn’t have a published orbit is going to be a spy satellite. So computer control it to point at that satellite, and when the satellite comes around for a look just feed it a burst of light bright enough to fry the optics.

I’ve wondered about spy satellites is it an act of war to take them out when they orbit over your territory

It’s a breach of a major treaty.

What about them spying too bad how sad

mollwollfumble said:

What about the idea of taking out a spy satellite’s optics with a powerful torch?

A laser can’t be used as an effective killing weapon but it could be used as a blinding weapon. Or a chemical explosion powered torch with parabolic mirror.

Set it up in the backyard to track spy satellites. That should be easy enough because any satellite observed that doesn’t have a published orbit is going to be a spy satellite. So computer control it to point at that satellite, and when the satellite comes around for a look just feed it a burst of light bright enough to fry the optics.

easier to hack them in some way then drop the hammer on them when and if necessary

i’d use a microwave beam to fry the solar panels on the satellite, no more panels , no more power to the satellite.

musk is obviously using swarm tactics to ensure signal coverage during a wartime situation