Observation was a pretty big deal in WWI even with the fixed defenses. A set of eyes and a spotting scope up in a balloon or a recon plane could tell you where to fire your artillery, or warn of massing enemy forces (a good place to fire your artillery into), or of weakened enemy lines, perhaps from forces being pulled away to be sent elsewhere (see above).
That's why airpower came into its prime in that war. You needed fighters to intercept the enemy recon planes and balloons, and to protect your recon planes and balloons (the balloons were also often protected by generous deployments of anti-aircraft weaponry.) And of course, you could also use the fighters to recon as well.
Once the Allies were able to mass enough aircraft on the Western front to sweep the Axis airpower away from the front lines, they were able to attack much more effectively because the Germans would have no way of knowing when the Allies were massing their forces for an assault on any particular part of the front. Conversely, the Germans could not mass their forces without being on the receiving end of a massive Allied artillery barrage, because they could not prevent the Allied aircraft from observing them.
Also, unless someone comes forward and downloads stuff from the drone it's transmitting stuff, which will eventually get spotted, and will probably result in the drone's destruction.
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
No there is no magical limiter that says there is any increased chance that a ground vehicle will miss more either. The number of times aerial and even satellite recon has missed something that was more easily spotted from the ground is countless. Hell there are plenty of times it took someone practically standing on something to spot it after all the optical and electronic surveillance missed it.
Same is true for all other recon platforms. Unless someone is gathering the data by hand the system either has to carry it back to base or otherwise deliver a physical option an option with all platforms even satellites. The other option is active transmission of data same problem all around. Even foot patrols either have to write down data, deliver recorded material by foot, or transmit it by radio.
No really your not saying anything that does not apply to other systems or introduces some imaginary flaw here.
Who watches the watchmen?
For one, being much lower, a ground-based system has a limited horizon even in flat country, and except for salt pans there's practically nowhere in the world where the terrain is perfectly flat. For another, there's practically nowhere in the world where terrain is perfectly flat, so your surveillance range is often going to be really short.
As for transmission, yeah, other systems suffer the same thing, but they're mostly not trying to hide anyway (unlike this potential ground system), so it's less of a problem. Except maybe for foot patrols, but with humans you don't have to be there when the transmission is happening.
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Still no. It is entirely determined by terrain there are many many places you can easily find huge areas where you can see for miles unobstructed even in the mountains, hills, plains, forests even cities. These are pretty much the places you would park a small recon vehicle. The advantage of a mast is your still not needing to expose yourself to use the point for observation of your surroundings. You know the point of the piece of equipment int he first place and in no means it is limited as to not be worth it or effective. Your seriously fishing for something that isn't there.
You pick the terrain for your OP post not the other way around. Terrain also can limit aerial and satellite observation and has done so on numerous occasions. This is why ground recon still exists. Never mind on the ground still gets far clearer view of things then air or satellite units. There is a reason the LRRP has been doing foot patrols since Vietnam through modern times. We even had men roaming the hills of Afghanistan with simple optics on Afghani horses and leading pack mules.
No the idea of even an airborne scout element is still to not be readily detected. It kind of defeats the point of scouting and recon if you announce your presence with an obvious drone. Sending up a drone and not bothering to hide it in contested air and ground space pretty much says "HI SOMEONE IS HERE SEE THE DRONE YEAH OVER HEAR!" Which is why low key recon flights use a mix of tactics like flying low and faster to evade radar and casual detection something still done today when flying through a contested airspace. That and they quickly realized flying in the air means radar can see you. This is why the recon drones are usually small and increasingly incorporating low RCS tech and even that is not saving them from detection against an opponent with an adequate aerial radar system.
You can't hide a satellite and their altitude is not a protection when multiple world powers have demonstrated an ability to swat such satellites from orbit with ground based units or use land based lasers to dazzle them. An ability unlikely to go away in any future scenarios. You could even put out the sensitive optical electrical equipment on a billion dollar satellite using a laser. The Chinese made a point with a US spy satellite of that fact a few years back by using just enough power to blind it temporarily. By all estimates they could have fried the sensor had they really wanted to.
UGV's have one key ability none of the others do outside of Tethered aerial drones. The ability to easily attach a hardline. Someone can just walk up to it and plug something in and run it off of a reel.
edited 9th Sep '15 12:51:45 AM by TuefelHundenIV
Who watches the watchmen?
Of course, nothing's perfect, which is why land-mines are still in use.
On, and aerial reconnaissance can take place where ground patrols can't, it's why things like the U-2 and SR-71 were built.
edited 9th Sep '15 1:07:53 AM by MattII
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Yeah you can see for miles in cities happens all the time. You should try actually looking around a city sometime you might be astounded to find a lot of space you can see a lot of unobstructed even in modern cities with sky scrapers.
You see they have these things called buildings and observers get up in them all the time and have nice clear views for miles all around. Even a building just a few stories tall can give you a surprisingly good view. Funny thing about that we use that tactic all the time in the real world. They put LP/OP and sniper posts in them all the time. Next your going to tell me there is no such thing a stretches of multi-mile roads you can easily see down with no obstructions to your view from even low elevations or locations in cities can see over long wide stretches of the city itself in pretty much every city. Cities have lots of spaces where you can see far and wide. In fact most urban combat is described as easily going from knife fighting close to multi-thousand meter distances with a sniper on over watch just by going a few yards in one direction vs another. Something noted since WWII and still holds true today.
The best cameras can be mounted on anything. I hate to break it to you but the camera and sensor systems on drones are actually rather small, compact, and light and various versions already exist on ground mounts ironically on sensor masts. They have to be compact, small, and light because drones don't have a lot of carriage especially compared to ground units. Satellites are even more limited by what you can pack on them. Fact of the matter is pound for pound of platform UGV's have the advantage in total carriage over anything that flies. It takes a lot more aircraft of any sort to loft the same weight you can carry on a ground vehicle.
No they can't carry bigger better cameras they are far more restricted by weight then a ground vehicle by a large margin. That is pretty much basic airplanes 101. Ground vehicles can always mount, move, and carry far larger and far more powerful equipment then a plane or satellite because it is a lot less limited then the satellite or the drone in terms of load limits.
The enemy has no problem with blasting a drone down with MANPAD, AA guns, or other systems if it means poking out your eye or shooting down the other ones with longer range weapons or even intercepting them with a jet again if it means impairing your ability to see them they have every reason to do it. You have some weird assumption that just because it is small but seen or out of range of MANPADS it will remain unmolested when real world examples fly in the face of that questionable logic in the first place. They have been blasting recon drones out of the sky since Vietnam. A lot harder to hit back then.
No it doesn't come down to an eye for an eye leaving everyone blind do try to stick to something that didn't fall out of a fortune cookie.
Land mines are also perfectly capable of doing their job still and they have long since advanced. They can and still do everything from block routes, kill and maim infantry, channel defensive positions, can even attack things like helicopters, and even damage and destroy tanks. They even have smart landmine systems at this point that can do all of the above. That was very sloppy of you and you should really know better.
In case you missed the memo the SR-71 hasn't flown in a long time and neither has the U2 in a dedicated recon role and ground patrols can take place where aircraft can't and they are still around as are recon vehicles. Chances are very good ground recon will be around for the foreseeable future. Oh and ground recon isn't going to be hampered by overcast or bad weather to the same degree of severity as airborne units and frequently operate in all weather.
Who watches the watchmen?
And I think I'll end this here. I had a load of responses lined up, but I remember what happened last time we had a disagreement, and I can't see the point of going through it again, so I'm going to fold. You win.
edited 9th Sep '15 3:45:56 AM by MattII
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Even shanty towns open up in many places. Cities and towns have a wide variety of tall things you could use as an OP without having to resort to aircraft. I can think of several places in all the cities I have spent time in where a single high OP point could provide a good view. over a wide area.
When you shifted away for UGV's to satellites and aircraft.
And your point about the HET is what? Hubble only weighs in around 12 and a quarter tons max and it is meant for deep space observation. You don't need something Hubble sized to see 20kms in multiple modes in the air or ground. Those kinds of systems were compacted a long time ago to something a person could haul around. There are powerful man packable optics used in mountain top LP/OP's that have been around for over a decade that do that now. Multi-sensor pods capable of seeing from two feet to tens of km have been a thing for decades.
Lockheed-Martin already makes a couple varieties for use on regular aircraft, aerial drones, and the UGV's. The best part it is the same sensor cluster across all platforms for both variants. The only difference is the mounting. The overall capabilities of the units is the same. There is even an adapted mast mount for pick up trucks that you just lash down into the bed of the truck. The systems keep compacting small and smaller. The reasons for mounting them is pretty obvious. Instead of a squad of guys hauling optics around to do the same job you have it all in one vehicle mounted unit. You also don't have to risk sending private snuffy up the ridge and hoping the dolt remmbers to not peek his IR hot head over the ridge line. They even have an example mounted on the UGV meant to help carry soldiers heavy packs and kit.
Yeah it would be worth it to down an RQ-11 though that little guy it might be easier to try with MG's. Be a real bugger to hit though. Then again that is one of the goals of some of the next gen mini-missiles is to tag small drones. At least the Navy Spike Missile is aimed partly at that goal.
Eyes in the sky is eyes in the sky better to leave them guessing then let them get a free peep show. They have shot down some drones with IR missiles already and some of the lower flying ones with gun fire of some sort. I don't think the older generation MANPA Ds could do it though and not on the itty bitty drones. But then again we use drones of just about any size these days from something the size of a hobby rc plane from Toys R Us to ones as big as the F-16. The newer generation MANPADS have the better IR packages that can see things like wing tip glint at a couple miles out. The latest gen Stinger has something like an 8km effective range now. The Star-streak system is over 7km but uses different systems to track and target. Apparently some of the SPAAG Platforms can reach tens of KM depending on what they are loaded with at the time. The drones engines even the electric ones apparently produce just enough heat to be tracked by some systems. I don't think the small ones like RQ-11 though run hot enough for that though at least not to any systems we have now. Which might partly explain the EO tracking on the mini-missiles.
The US might but even then blinding a spy sat overflying your country is one thing zapping any sat belonging to the other guy is something else entirely.
I am not surprised at the SC members going land mine ban? Nah. Though the US at least is pushing those smart mines like the M-93 Hornet, the Spider Smart mine, and other systems these days. Also pushing for more reliable self destructing mines. There was even a pocket sized anti-pursuit mine that blew before the battery died self destructed reportedly with a high degree of reliability. Not quite sure how much of the inventory they will replace with the smart stuff though as it tends to be expensive. Then we have things like the Selectable Lightweight Attack Munitions. These little devils are neat and surprisingly light. The weigh just a bit over 2lbs with a magnetic and passive IR sensor. They can be set to attack vehicle bottoms, sides, as adhoc demo charges, and even command detonated.
Ground forces have been operating at night time with some form of night vision since the end of WWII. Latest gen can see for miles through NVG optics and they even see in colour now which is pretty damn cool. Colour NVG's
Field of view is still a bit narrow but better then not seeing at all and seeing in colour.
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
A list of some surprisingly nasty chemicals Leave it to the US government to create one of the most unstable compounds in search of a bigger conventional bang.
Two of them are exclusively Germany.
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
I noticed that.
Who watches the watchmen?
To pile on one last anecdatum to the recon conversation: Sometimes you don't need to see far, you just need to see a particular key location, like a highway or bridge or crossroads, that the enemy will need to utilize to get to some other place.
Which is of course the best place, a narrow position the enemy has to go through.
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Classic mountain pass ambush anyone?
Who watches the watchmen?
Eye'm the cutest!
^ Canyons. Gorges. Or ideally, a canyon/gorge system leading to a mountain pass. Like happens in Colorado west of Salida headed towards Monarch Pass. Highway 50 follows the canyon where the Arkansas River comes down from Buena Vista until it hits the base of the mountains below the Pass. It then follows a small creek valley up until you pass Monarch Ski Resort and then head into Monarch Pass proper.
If you want to go around the Pass there, you better have wings or you know how to hoof it across rugged rocky mountain terrain. There's no other vehicle access for many miles either north or south of there.
"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
There are even quite few places out on the plains where you could suddenly find yourself in low ground because of how the hills around the plains lay. Small wonder why things like the Switchblade are a thing and used. I like one of the nick names for it. 'Airstrike in a Can'
Who watches the watchmen?
Eye'm the cutest!
That's southeast Colorado in a nutshell. A series of canyons, arroyos, mesas and an uplifted region south of the Arkansas River. You can be going for miles across flat as fuck or gently sloping shortgrass prairie with literally nothing above knee height save maybe sunflowers and then suddenly the plains give way to a big arroyo or shallow river canyon.
I once mentioned Apache Flats in the Gun Porn thread. Same thing. Ten miles of pure flatlands east to west at the base of Greenhorn MountainMore and then going east it drops into rugged canyonland where the Huerfano River drainage is. (Rattlesnake Canyon I believe is the name for that area. Fitting, since there are fucktons of rattlesnakes out that way.) If you have hazy weather or dusty/smoky conditions you won't see the canyonland to the east until you get very close. Worse, the northern reaches are a straight drop down into Greenhorn Valley. You can't see the drop coming going north, it just looks like a small ridge top there.
edited 10th Sep '15 4:42:28 PM by MajorTom
"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
That sounds like the same kind of terrain in the West Nebraska badlands.
Who watches the watchmen?
Eye'm the cutest!
Well except for the Clayton Volcanic Field on the other side of Raton Pass from southeast Colorado and the couple little bits of volcanic stuff this side like Huerfano Cone, it pretty much is.
The entire Rocky Mountains and high plains region of North America is like one big ass huge version of Afghanistan. Lots of canyons, high desert, prairie, badlands, mountains and more.
The Fulda Gap it is not.
"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Very true. It is also the kind of terrain that has helped drive some of the weapon advances especially guided weapons.
However it seems the guided mortar rounds are late to the party for the US.
Who watches the watchmen?
Eye'm the cutest!
^ That reminds me.
Mortar rounds. Could mortar style systems no matter the ammo be feasible to have a repeating mortar? In effect More Dakka?
I have one idea for a sort of Powered Armor weapon/ability known as the Pack Mortar. It's a plasma mortar literally mounted on a trooper's pack. He can then set down and his targeting systems will calculate and control where he aims from a set firing position such as taking a knee.
But the best part and the relevant bit? He would have in the time it takes to run afoul of Overheating a total of six "rounds" ready to fire about as fast as he can hit Fire on his suit's keypad.
The way I figure, naturally spamming the trigger as fast as you can leads to relatively low accuracy as far as short range indirect fire artillery is concerned. But the higher capacity can mean that if you pace your shots you can bombard a position a lot longer before needing a reload/cool down than any traditional mortar system.
"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
The simple answer is yes. It boils down to the reloading/feed system. There are self loading mortars like the Dragon Fire II and Hyundai Wia 120mm. The ROF is low because they are still muzzle loaded. If you want higher ROF you want a breech loaded mortar or a Gun-Mortar. All a gun-mortar really is is a mortar that can be fired from the horizontal. Having a breach system allows you take advantage of faster auto-loading systems like clip or revolver type systems which are common auto-loaders for big guns.
The trade off is the automatic mortar is quite a bit heavier then the hand loaded versions and often requires a vehicle mounting or towing to be mobile where even the 120mm can be manpacked. Since you are already talking about it being a vehicle mount you have that part taken care of.
A good example would be the Russian See here Notice it has a large breech mechanism, recoil mech., and a mobile mounting. It is also a rapid fire 82mm mortar. It can be muzzle or breach loaded. The rapid fire breech mechanism fires from what is basically a big stripper clip. Another plus is each mortar can have a different charge set up so if you want to fire different rounds like AP with HE mix you can do that and use different charges for different ranges. The downside is it takes longer to reload the mortar clips. It would be good to have clips be ready with a standard load out and either adjusted on the fly with different ammo options or preloaded variable munition clips for the missions.
There are other automatic mortar systems as well. I believe those turreted 120mm Mortars are automatic. The AMOS or Advanced Mortar System is a double barreled automatic mortar for example.
Who watches the watchmen?
I've been doing a bit of post-apoc worldbuilding lately, and I was thinking about the kinds of vehicles a sufficiently large motorised warband might build. Eventually my thoughts turned to the possibility of turning a semi-truck and trailer into a super-sized troop transport, but I'm not sure about some of the figures.
According to Wikipedia, the largest semi-trailers are 57ft (17.37m) in length, and according to my own guesstimates, an average human needs a square of about 0.7m of space to sit comfortably without being cramped. In my proposed transport, that would allow for 24 people per row, with about half a metre of extra space left over. Double that for two rows on either side of the trailer (48), and then double that number because we're gonna stick a second storey on this thing because why the hell not, and we end up with 96 soldiers to a transport.
Are those numbers fair? Are they accurate? Would it be worth putting in a third aisle down the centre on both storeys? What if it was made into standing-room only? Could we fit more soldiers that way? Would the truck even be able to pull that many people? And, of course, how dangerous would installing that second story be?
No a telescopic device would still be useful for fixed fronts as well. Again avoiding that whole direct exposure bit. They used observation and spotting periscopes to peek out of trenches in WWI.
You could also easily include them in OP/LP positions the only thing they do differently then most other observation kit is have the ability to adjust elevation as well as rotate. You could entrench an OP/LP and leave just the mast with the sensing and observation kit peaking over the cover. There is also nothing preventing it from being used in a mobile phase of warfare either. Vehicles often have to slow down or stop even on the march to deal with obstacles and various pieces of rough terrain and the first thing that happens is observation of your immediate area.
Any observation operation regardless of device has a chance of missing or not finding the opposition that is not at all a unique or a mitigating feature of a telescoping observation platform.
edited 8th Sep '15 8:46:41 PM by TuefelHundenIV
Who watches the watchmen?