I'm sure it was a real threat back when the Ruskies only had radar and diesel engines were still using mechanical fuel injection, but times have changed.

Yep, the M1 (built in 1980) has been made totally obsolete by technological advances. 

I mean, it’s not like the brand new F-15 (built 1976, 200+ still in service in the US) or the even newer F-16 (built in 1978, 900+ still in service in the US)…

Yep, the M1 (built in 1980) has been made totally obsolete by technological advances. 

I mean, it’s not like the brand new F-15 (built 1976, 200+ still in service in the US) or the even newer F-16 (built in 1978, 900+ still in service in the US)…

The Boeing 747 was first flown in 1969.  Between 1968 - 2023, 1,574 have been built.

Maybe someone should warn Resident Biden he's being flown around the world in a piece of junk.

Technically, it's a highly modified 747-200B, designated a VC-25A.  Similar to how the Boeing 707 was modified to become the KC-135 mid-air refueler, and the E-3 AWACS Airborne Early Warning and Defense platform.

In fact, by 1985, the plane designated AF One was itself a Boeing 707 which was in service for 23 years: VC-137.

Maybe leasing these things would be cheaper, and then we could just trade them in every 3-5 years for a newer model?

We haven't fought a proper conventional military since WW2.

I shudder to think what all those hard lessons learned at the same time is going to be like

I'm sure it was a real threat back when the Ruskies only had radar and diesel engines were still using mechanical fuel injection, but times have changed.

You think they made the Abrams and then just left it as is? No upgrades or anything?

BTW, do you know the benefits of the turbine engines on the Abrams? It can use multiple fuels making it more flexible in the battlefield.

You think they made the Abrams and then just left it as is? No upgrades or anything?

BTW, do you know the benefits of the turbine engines on the Abrams? It can use multiple fuels making it more flexible in the battlefield.

IDK if it's the turbine engine alone (runs on jet fuel), but History Channel said it can run on any type of fuel. Which is a huge plus on the battlefield.  IDK if diesel engines can run on gasoline or jet fuel as IDK anything about diesel.

We haven't fought a proper conventional military since WW2.

I shudder to think what all those hard lessons learned at the same time is going to be like

I wonder how many arms of our troops will be lost when they try to take selfies.........

I'm not sure how well the US will do in a conventional war scenario.  A lot of the training is on a more technical aspect, even with tank warfare.  The technological sophistication is through the roof.

When I served, initially the emphasis was on jungle warfare (Vietnam).  Then it switched to Russia being the enemy so we trained for the vast fields of Europe.  Then terrorism reared it's ugly head and we trained for urban warfare.

Each scenario entailed different training regimens.  I have no idea how the US trains it's troops now.  Maybe someone who has more knowledge on this can share.

However if the US gets sucked into the Ukraine war I'm confident those Armor units stationed in Germany would kick ass.

Joint War Fighting Concept 3.0

The document — called JP 1 Volume 1, Joint Warfighting — appears to have
been quietly published on Aug. 27, although it isn’t publicly available.

“We realized Joint Warfighting Concept 3.0 as Joint Publication 1 Volume 1 …
This is important because it’s gone from concept to doctrine, and it marks a
distinctive paradigm change.

At the AFA conference, Grady noted that Joint Warfighting Concept 3.0 focuses
on information advantage, command and control, joint fires, the ability to win
in contested logistics, and expanded maneuver.

To win “key battles for advantage,” U.S. military forces must “sense and make
sense” of their operating environments by fusing information from sensors across
multiple domains — including space, air and land — and make that information
rapidly available for decision-makers. The employment of combinations of crewed
and uncrewed systems will be a key component of future operations, he added.

The U.S. military is good at force employment, Grady said. However, he sees
room for improvement regarding force design.

“Where I think we can do better as a Joint Force is the future force design aspect.
And we have to hold ourselves accountable to the direction that we’ve been given”
by the secretary of defense, the National Defense Strategy and Joint Warfighting
Concept 3.0, he said, noting that the DOD needs to solve some of its key challenges
in upcoming budget cycles.

https://defensescoop.com/2023/09/13/us-military-publishes-new-joint-warfighting-doctrine/

When I was in Squadron Officer School, the doctrine we learned was developed post-Korea & Vietnam.

Conventional warfare was viewed as the least likely scenario, yet Kuwait and Iraq kind of proved that to be a mistaken belief.

We were preparing to fight undesignated hostiles (indistinguishable from noncombatants), in terrain we would find difficult logistically, and with missions that were part of a plan designed by multinational coalitions including input from the UN.

The running joke was that Korea was a police action -- not a war.  Since the UN's inception, declaring war against any other nation was illegal.  We were "allowed" to defend our country against aggression, and we could help repel invasions between two other nations as part of UN peace keeping, but no more were we allowed to bomb the enemy into submission and force a surrender (e.g. Japan).

That doctrine became all too real after seeing the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Fighting rebel forces and insurgents meant there was no recognized foreign national leadership for us to force to surrender.

I think the new doctrine by the Joint Chiefs is recognizing the technological advantages will decide conflicts as UAVs, satellite surveillance, and cyber warfare replace boots on the ground.

We fought many conventional battles since WW2 though.  IIRC, NAM only had 1 tank on tank battle. Desert Shield had a bunch, which the Abrams dominated.  But I get what your point is.

If ever 2 more advanced countries were to fight, I think the casualties would be huge.  No FOB would be safe from guided missile strikes and drone (UK/Rus drop grenade style).  I want to even say that this type of advanced war would be MAD (mutual assured destruction) but not on the nuke level, but 1 step below it.

In OIF, we saw FOBs hit mainly with mortars and unguided rockets from people who don't know how to really coordinate an attack.  Same with A-stan FOBs.

What the US would need is an Israel type dome to help intercept, but even those can't get 100% of incoming attacks.

I have gone a bit down the rabbit hole of Ukraine war footage. It is amazing how many armored vehicles were disabled or even completely destroyed with a medium sized hobby drone dropping a grenade or small mortar looking bomb onto the top of a tank. Often it would disable the engine and artillery would finish the tank off but often a drone would later drop a grenade in the open hatch and catch fire destroying the whole tank. There are even videos of russians surrendering to drones

I have gone a bit down the rabbit hole of Ukraine war footage. It is amazing how many armored vehicles were disabled or even completely destroyed with a medium sized hobby drone dropping a grenade or small mortar looking bomb onto the top of a tank. Often it would disable the engine and artillery would finish the tank off but often a drone would later drop a grenade in the open hatch and catch fire destroying the whole tank. There are even videos of russians surrendering to drones

I have always been amazed that in a warzone and not in a green area, 1 leaves the hatch open. I get that it's hot, but still.  Same when you see commanders popping out, unless it's to engage infantry with the machine gun or to get info from a ground unit.  Inside the tank is the safest place to be.

I think the russians are surrendering cause they don't want to fight. So the only close thing would be a drone. There's 1 vid of a drone guiding a russian solder to the Ukraine line to surrender.  There's also vids of Russians breaking their legs so they won't get drafted at that moment. Most of the time, there was an empty bottle of Vodka in their hand.

You think they made the Abrams and then just left it as is? No upgrades or anything?

BTW, do you know the benefits of the turbine engines on the Abrams? It can use multiple fuels making it more flexible in the battlefield.

It uses the same amount of fuel if it’s moving or standing still, greatly reducing its range between refueling.

Try putting that up against modern diesels that can stay in the field twice as long

Way too much of our gear was designed to make money for military contractors and is only useful for beating up on inferior forces. And then we still lose. 20 years in Afghanistan just to give it all back to the taliban

It uses the same amount of fuel if it’s moving or standing still, greatly reducing its range between refueling.

Try putting that up against modern diesels that can stay in the field twice as long

Way too much of our gear was designed to make money for military contractors and is only useful for beating up on inferior forces. And then we still lose. 20 years in Afghanistan just to give it all back to the taliban

I wonder if Tank X is close to being released -- with Tesla style EV engines?

Of course, there's that charging station problem ....

By the way, our soldiers need cell phone charging stations out in the battlefield also.......

I wonder if Tank X is close to being released -- with Tesla style EV engines?

Of course, there's that charging station problem ....

I can see PFC's made to ride a bike to peddle charge it

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I can see PFC's made to ride a bike to peddle charge it

Imagine going to war with a Chinese ally and suddenly we can't supply enough batteries to fight the war, drive our cars and transport our food and materials at home.

Imagine going to war with a Chinese ally and suddenly we can't supply enough batteries to fight the war, drive our cars and transport our food and materials at home.

Theres no shortage of PFC's and Friday safety brief mess up E4's.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

It uses the same amount of fuel if it’s moving or standing still, greatly reducing its range between refueling.

Try putting that up against modern diesels that can stay in the field twice as long

Way too much of our gear was designed to make money for military contractors and is only useful for beating up on inferior forces. And then we still lose. 20 years in Afghanistan just to give it all back to the taliban

Give and take. Run out of diesel and you are dead in the water, much easier to source fuel in a war zone if you are not so limited to sources

Give and take. Run out of diesel and you are dead in the water, much easier to source fuel in a war zone if you are not so limited to sources

If tank crews are scavenging fuel in order to try and keep up with the other side then you likely have bigger problems than just obsolete tanks.

That means supply lines have been stretched to the breaking point and having to move and store twice as much fuel probably didn’t help much.