Modern military technology seems to become too costly. Recent conflicts in the middle east seem to indicate that low-cost approaches can have some terribly effective successes against much more sophisticated militaries.
Asymetric warfare is very different from the near-peer conventional warfare we see in Ukraine.
One cannot occupy a region milotarily if a large enough portion of the local population is hell bent to oppose that accupation. That's what happened in Vietnam and Afghanistan.
Ukraine is what happens ofnthe imvasion force is met by defenders capable of stopping the invasion. And the war in Ukraine cannot be fought with low tech weapons, heck, everything older than the Vietnam War won't cut it anymore.
Actually no, it is not what happened in Vietnam and Afghanistan. In Vietnam there was constant foreign infiltration by the enemy and they used quite nasty "tactics" to gain local influence. Afghanistan is not much different. In principle the side that was more willing to instill more terror into local populace won.
The same problems of logistics also do apply to the local opposition. If you run out of weapons or ammunition then you are done. If your supply lines are cut then you are done. It is also the main reason why the two wars mentioned were lost - incapacity of political will to cut the enemy supply lines.
I think it is more complicated. Both sides are consuming huge quantities of cheap artillery, drones, SAM, anti-tank mines and vehicles. HIMARS and smart artillery shells can make up for differences in fire powers, but only up to a point. Better tanks and IFV increase crew survivability, but they still get taken out of combats by drones, artillery and mines.
I'm sure Ukraine air force would love long range AA missiles (to counter the Russian ones) and stealth planes to avoid SAM (but Russians are not using theirs, probably because they suck, but still...).
Russian genocidal war against Ukraine is not yet settled and the weapons used there are in constant evolution. If anything it is the response of Israel to the 7th October genocide that shows that expensive weapon systems in the hands of competent military still triumph any low cost approaches.
The rent seeking aspect of the any industrial complex is driven by manufactured consent, for politicians to pillage the public coffers they have access to, and so it's heavily overpriced - the price not driven by free market but by war profiteering.
In Elon Musk biography by Isaacson, Elon explains the importance to why he sued NASA on behalf of SpaceX - in regards to the $227 million sole-source contract NASA awarded to Kistler in 2004; the strength or weight of the importance here outweighed any personal-emotional feelings and relationships he had, he stuck to his guns of seeing the corruption and understanding the negative impact and unfairness to SpaceX - perhaps selfish in nature but if Elon's nature is for fairness and justice, long live Elon.
But yes, save blanket bombing a whole territory, guerilla warfare with necessity-survival will lead to the most creative possibilities.
> FPV drones can almost be crafted locally, though, using off the shelf components.
The COTS components are all made in China. That's why no Western military is planning to use them in wartime - that supply chain is depending on the good will of an adversary.
The US military has known this for a long time, it just chooses to bury its head in the sand and ignore it.
See e.g. MC02 where they lost to opfor with what was literally like a cheaply thrown together zerg rush, and then just reset the scenario for a do-over.
Ah, that one war game. Reality is more complicated than that, as all wars since WW2 have shown us.
I agree so, not all lessons from that particular wargame seem to have been learned. Calling what mounted to a quite brilliant, unconventional strategy a "cheaply thrown together zerg rush" is just blatantly wrong so.
MC02 had a lot of problems but calling it a zerg rush exposes your ignorance-- it was a very sophisticated and well-coordinated surprise attack. The people running the wargame rejected the outcome as a likely tactic to be used by the hypothetical adversary and guess what, they have been proven right, see: the war in iraq. The iraqi army completely failed to hold initiative against the coalition or organize coherent resistance nevermind launch a coordinated surprise attack ahead of the invasion.
The other aspect that is missed in criticisms of this particular wargame is the fact that there were specific doctrine elements that were to be tested-- now the claimed outcome of those can be debated, for instance the fact that opfor had many restrictions on how they were allowed to employ their anti air defenses-- but a wargame is NOT meant to be a giant game of paintball where when one side gets hit they just pack up and go home, that would be incredibly wasteful. In many cases you have formations planning and training for months to participate in the exercise. The purpose is testing out many different aspects of doctrine, and often times that involves 'ignoring' results of one part of the wargame.
Isn't it easy enough to make ammunition for modern rifles?
I'm not a gunsmith or gun engineer, but it doesn't sound difficult to reuse casings and make ammunition.
Of course, one would still need to make:
* pointy bullets with steel scraps and some cast/mold and some coal-powered oven (you see a lot of youtube guys melting metal with not that much equipment)
* gunpowder and a primer, and might not require a lot of chemistry. Smokeless powder is hard to do, but normal powder should be easy enough.
Even in the end times when there is no oil or industry, it seems that making rifle ammunition is still better, modern rifle are quite accurate and deadly at 100m, maybe even with low quality ammunition, while you need a very skilled archer to hit a target at that distance.
Steel, cast iron, etc. won't be great as a projectile because (1) it's not dense enough (2) it's not soft enough.
(1) is important for ballistic properties and carrying energy to the target
(2) is important because you want to be able to fire the weapon more than once without destroying the barrel's rifling.
Now you might argue that some kind of sabot or patch could work to mitigate this. But you'll still have a density problem. Would have to test it to find out how badly it impacts performance.
The best marksmen in competitions make there own bullets because they want to control all the variables. So yes bullets are easy to make and you can buy the equipment for affordable prices from many suppliers.
Factory ammo is just as cheap (even though labor is free, and equipment costs are not counted at all for the make your own) and takes less time so militarizes use it as does anyone who doesn't need the best quality.
The license terms of the article seem contradictory in a way. When I download the PDF it includes an appendix stating:
> Copyright of Full Text rests with the original copyright owner and, except as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, copying this copyright material is prohibited without the permission of the owner or its exclusive licensee or agent or by way of a license from Copyright Agency Limited. For information about such licences contact Copyright Agency Limited on (02) 93947600 (ph) or (02) 93947601 (fax)
However, in the margins of the whole text and also on the appendix page'S margin it says:
> Available under a Creative Commons Attribution Licence
Does this already count as a license from Copyright Agency Limited? What does the law say about such potentially conflicting terms?
Thats odd, I can't see any reference to Creative Commons in my copy. The copyright rests with the Australian Defence Force Journal and is administered by Copyright Agency Ltd as far as I understand.
First I clicked on "View PDF". Then on the PDF page I clicked on the Download button in the upper right corner. This gives me a PDF with the Creative Commons notice in the left margin of every page.
> A current example is the oil industry, which some argue could require as much as US$100 trillion over coming decades just to replace ageing and rust-affected infrastructure.
This aged like milk. 15 years later, and the US extracts 2.5 times more oil.
Funny. Induatry transformed tobbe one of the most profitable public2private transfer is not suitable to produce even more robust things.
It works perfectly however - they will propose even photovoltaic propelled tanks in the near future, just to get the money
Readit News
What if We Replace Guns and Bullets with Bows and Arrows? https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2022/11/what-if-we-replace...
Dead Comment
One cannot occupy a region milotarily if a large enough portion of the local population is hell bent to oppose that accupation. That's what happened in Vietnam and Afghanistan.
Ukraine is what happens ofnthe imvasion force is met by defenders capable of stopping the invasion. And the war in Ukraine cannot be fought with low tech weapons, heck, everything older than the Vietnam War won't cut it anymore.
The same problems of logistics also do apply to the local opposition. If you run out of weapons or ammunition then you are done. If your supply lines are cut then you are done. It is also the main reason why the two wars mentioned were lost - incapacity of political will to cut the enemy supply lines.
I'm sure Ukraine air force would love long range AA missiles (to counter the Russian ones) and stealth planes to avoid SAM (but Russians are not using theirs, probably because they suck, but still...).
The future of the warfare is when you have no high-value targets at all on the battlefield and everything is spread out as evenly as possible.
In Elon Musk biography by Isaacson, Elon explains the importance to why he sued NASA on behalf of SpaceX - in regards to the $227 million sole-source contract NASA awarded to Kistler in 2004; the strength or weight of the importance here outweighed any personal-emotional feelings and relationships he had, he stuck to his guns of seeing the corruption and understanding the negative impact and unfairness to SpaceX - perhaps selfish in nature but if Elon's nature is for fairness and justice, long live Elon.
But yes, save blanket bombing a whole territory, guerilla warfare with necessity-survival will lead to the most creative possibilities.
FPV drones can almost be crafted locally, though, using off the shelf components.
The COTS components are all made in China. That's why no Western military is planning to use them in wartime - that supply chain is depending on the good will of an adversary.
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39187161>
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39180235>
Appropriate practice:
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39213144>
Deleted Comment
See e.g. MC02 where they lost to opfor with what was literally like a cheaply thrown together zerg rush, and then just reset the scenario for a do-over.
I agree so, not all lessons from that particular wargame seem to have been learned. Calling what mounted to a quite brilliant, unconventional strategy a "cheaply thrown together zerg rush" is just blatantly wrong so.
The other aspect that is missed in criticisms of this particular wargame is the fact that there were specific doctrine elements that were to be tested-- now the claimed outcome of those can be debated, for instance the fact that opfor had many restrictions on how they were allowed to employ their anti air defenses-- but a wargame is NOT meant to be a giant game of paintball where when one side gets hit they just pack up and go home, that would be incredibly wasteful. In many cases you have formations planning and training for months to participate in the exercise. The purpose is testing out many different aspects of doctrine, and often times that involves 'ignoring' results of one part of the wargame.
I'm not a gunsmith or gun engineer, but it doesn't sound difficult to reuse casings and make ammunition.
Of course, one would still need to make:
* pointy bullets with steel scraps and some cast/mold and some coal-powered oven (you see a lot of youtube guys melting metal with not that much equipment)
* gunpowder and a primer, and might not require a lot of chemistry. Smokeless powder is hard to do, but normal powder should be easy enough.
Even in the end times when there is no oil or industry, it seems that making rifle ammunition is still better, modern rifle are quite accurate and deadly at 100m, maybe even with low quality ammunition, while you need a very skilled archer to hit a target at that distance.
(1) is important for ballistic properties and carrying energy to the target (2) is important because you want to be able to fire the weapon more than once without destroying the barrel's rifling.
Now you might argue that some kind of sabot or patch could work to mitigate this. But you'll still have a density problem. Would have to test it to find out how badly it impacts performance.
Factory ammo is just as cheap (even though labor is free, and equipment costs are not counted at all for the make your own) and takes less time so militarizes use it as does anyone who doesn't need the best quality.
Dead Comment
> Copyright of Full Text rests with the original copyright owner and, except as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, copying this copyright material is prohibited without the permission of the owner or its exclusive licensee or agent or by way of a license from Copyright Agency Limited. For information about such licences contact Copyright Agency Limited on (02) 93947600 (ph) or (02) 93947601 (fax)
However, in the margins of the whole text and also on the appendix page'S margin it says:
> Available under a Creative Commons Attribution Licence
Does this already count as a license from Copyright Agency Limited? What does the law say about such potentially conflicting terms?
This aged like milk. 15 years later, and the US extracts 2.5 times more oil.
Deleted Comment