The Military Thread

Probably not too bad for something on the ground, but god help you if you want something that can actually fly safely. Red Storm Rising might not be too bad since there are lots of MiG-29s and F-16s kicking around, though they'll probably have to CGI the Backfire raids.

I mean, the planes in We Were Soldiers didn't look too bad, and those were entirely CGI.

Most M-60 tanks are either in the hands of foreign militaries or a few collectors. Most "tanks" you see on screen are either M-48's or Chieftans dressed up as M-1's. There are M113's in a few private hands but no Bradley's or M-1's. Most of the trucks you see are the M54 and M35 "deuce and a half", because the DOD and NATO got rid of lots of them in The '90s.

Warsaw Pact hardware? Unless it's jeeps and trucks, forget most larger tanks. Most commie tanks are T-55's and T-62's again in the hands of collectors. I have yet to see a real BMP or BTR onscreen.

edited 1st Mar '15 10:51:13 PM by TairaMai

British-Indian WWII pilots

Didn't Clancy own an early M-1 prototype or some such? I heard about that online somewhere once or twice but could never find anything to back it up.

An M4 Sherman, I'd always heard.

I'd be shocked if he didn't have one of those too Thought there was a abrams too though.

Eastern European war films, although they're mainly Russian, dealing with the Soviet-Afghan War or the Chechen wars feature plentiful stocks of authentic vehicles - former USSR states especially possess good stocks due to the Soviet Army's armour-heavy doctrines. However the vast majority of these films, with little to no markets in the West, are only known by their original Cryllic titles; the Soviet-Afghan War film Ninth Company is really the only major title to be renowned in the West, and that's because it required one of the largest budgets for a Russian film since 1991.

Unfortunately for future productions, the Ukrainian military in particular used to be a popular go-to supplier for weapons and equipment, especially for settings requiring portrayals of Warsaw Pact arsenals with gear dating past The '70s - Ninth Company's armoured columns featuring ERA-geared T-80's and BTR-80's were heavily drawn from Ukrainian stocks, and it's now incredibly Harsher in Hindsight that the vehicles Made of Explodium proven by the in-film muhadjadeen have come to be deployed in an actual civil war nowadays.

I read in a book detailing the U.S' Flying Heritage Collection museum in Washington state that there exists Russian firms that specialize in reproducing wartime equipment and vehicles from scratch; the museum occasionally seeks out aid from said niche firms to reproduce spare parts for its aircraft, particularly the Soviet ones, from time to time.

I suppose one way to ensure the survival of vintage aircraft and vehicles would be to bluntly use the brute force of government in declaring such restoration efforts to be in the name of preserving the historical heritage of a nation and subsidizing such efforts through special commissions in the military. The British RAF's Memorial Flight program and Russia's frugal insistence on keeping functioning spares of everything are examples of what I'm trying to get at.

Plus, Red Storm Rising or Ralph Peter's Red Army would be better off as TV series instead of feature films - there's only so much story you can drag out of a one week-long World War III within the confines of two hours. Instead, have multiple segments or episodes detailing the hour-by-hour struggle of the various participants and perspectives over time in the vein of 24.

The problem is that, aside from a few museums, the DOD doesn't like to keep old hardware. All B-58's were scrapped in early 80's, much to the chagrin of Casper Weinburger. He wanted to use them as a stop gap until the B-1 came on line. START caused many older B-52 models to be scrapped, along with GLCM and Pershing missiles. Many HAWK launchers wound up as targets at White Sands (I saw quite a few of them rusting when we went there on FTX) as did M-60, M-48 and M-113's. Many M-60's got sold off or were dumped into the sea as artificial reefs, joining aircraft and ships.

Many aircraft are worth more as scrap to the DOD than as artifacts unless requested by museums. The C-141, Hanoi Taxi, is now parked at the National Museum of the US Air Force, but most C-141's are now soda cans. Trucks? Scrap. The sale of HMMWV's to the "public" was to generate money for the DOD. I'm sure many film studios bought some olf M998's.

There are no more F-111's (sorry Air Power Australia) and many F-4's at the boneyard are now in too sorry a shape to even be drones, that's why there is a shift to the QF-16.

This is why I'd prefer animation: no cheesy SFX, time to get the details right and a chance to see some of the vital, but weird equipment.

edited 1st Mar '15 11:01:15 PM by TairaMai

Because the Pentagon doesn't like preserving its own equipment, my idea was that they'd have to be mandated to do so in the vein of the creation of the National Parks system but on a much less ambitious level. Attach specifically founded "Preservation Commissions" to each branch's respective historical directorate (i.e US Army Center of Military History and the Naval History & Heritage Command) as to enforce federal set quotas listing the minimum required numbers of varying subjected technology deemed to be "historically significant to the nation's defense" and thus worthy of preservation - basically it works like this: since ground vehicles are much more plentiful and easily obtainable than other forms of equipment, at least ten vehicles of a specific type are to be preserved with at least a quarter of these (two vehicles and one in process of becoming so) being operable. Aircraft are much more expensive and difficult to maintain, so the minimum number of each type to be preserved shall be half the number (five) of a type of ground vehicle and the quota set for those capable of flying to two of that number. The Preservation Commission attached to the Navy will have an easier time however, since warships are simply monsters to maintain in the first place - single warships chosen for preservation would simply be judged by merit of "historical significance" above all other factors. Since a major difficulty in privately preserving vehicles comes in financing such efforts to begin with, commissioning such efforts on the federal level would allow the Preservation Commissions access to the Pentagon's tax-based treasury - such a relationship would require extensive monitoring as to prevent the funds intended on restoring vehicles from becoming mismanaged to inevitably existing corruption and self-interest.

Of course this is all coming from the top of my head as I was typing, and a possible side effect I just thought about was of the possibility that such an effort by the federal government to preserve old military technology would ironically make life more difficult for the private museums unable to compete with the Preservation Commissions' resources.

The problem with that? Aside from a few aircraft, vessels or ground vehicles of historic value, the DOD has many, many, many current missions and units to care for.

When a vehicle is withdrawn, out goes the spares and the "tribal knowledge" to maintain it. The NCO's and Warrant Officers (except for the Air Force, they don't have Warrants) are keepers of the know how and the skills to maintain equipment. Sure there are the manuals, but they only cover the basics. It's worse for ships, not only is each ship unique, they are a bear to maintain and you're always fighting rust. Forget about moving aircraft or tanks, that fuel will go to units that need it.

Most private collections are static displays because it's just cheaper. Put an aircraft in a hangar or a tank in a building and it's protected from the elements and it's easy to preserve.

edited 2nd Mar '15 11:42:20 AM by TairaMai

Pair of prior service Rangers think economic approach is key to defeating groups like ISIS. Namely entice away all their recruits and keep the pressure on the leadership.

Seems legit. I was talking with a bunch of the infantry guys in my company and they talked about how they had already killed pretty much all the hardcore ideological guys in their AO halfway through their tour in Afghanistan. The only people left were the ones who were doing it for money.

Economic warfare is perhaps one of the most understated strategic devices we have in our arsenal.

They mention a similar set up used in Columbia. Take out the leaders and hardcore core group and offer the rest opportunities and amnesty.

edited 2nd Mar '15 9:48:16 PM by TuefelHundenIV

It really is, and they throw in a line about it in the closing portion of the article — it is a device we actually employ and not just the sole province of China.

There's also some pretty neat discussion going on in the comments. Some highlights:

That last point kind of beat me to it, but you want to try to avoid long-term sweatshop labor as a deterrent to terrorism because the proliferation of sweatshops (and all of the human rights violations that occur as a result of their popularity) is partly used as a justification for militant extremism in the first place.

It's very much a chicken/egg problem with Afghanistan: economic opportunities may indeed open up if the security's good and trucks can roll from Islamabad to Kabul without having to worry about the Taliban, but how to achieve that security without economic growth?

I like the second-to-last post that Rabbit cited, too. Some of you may roll your eyes at this, but lack of artistic expression and artistic consumption can contribute to extremist ideology. Progressive societies with lower levels of institutional violence tend to have more libraries, museums, art exhibits, stand-up comedians and music festivals than regressive societies that strictly control art through a puritanical lens. Art is often suppressed because it encourages a mindset that is critical, creative, introspective and skeptical. If you are managing a terrorist organization or a dictatorship, you want to suppress artistic expression because doing so further ensures a concentration of power in your hands.

People who use militant extremism to seek some sort of ideological utopia often cherry-pick sacred texts or other works of art in such a way that the original text is nearly unrecognizable from whatever mantra has been adopted by the individual or group in question. It doesn't surprise me that many extremist groups that choose a text as part of their manifesto tend to misinterpret that text because they lack the critical thinking skills to carefully evaluate what they are consuming.

Artistic deprivation, when combined with underemployment and unemployment, does aggravate an already vulnerable mind that is subject to any promise of purity, elevation or edification. I'd say more about that, but it would be better for the global terrorism thread and I need to go to bed.

edited 2nd Mar '15 10:28:19 PM by Aprilla

Totalitarian art is often sterile. It's not the lack of expression, it's the lack of freedom and a failure of institutions. If a government isn't willing to protect artists but instead is busy giving people hot lead injections, that will breed extremism.

There is a concept of "negative identity" in social psychology. A positive identity is socially approved things like hold a job, going to college etc. Negative identity is when someone rejects society and instead embraces things like gangs, drugs, and crime because having a positive identity is either blocked or is too hard. Or it's just easier and feels cool.

In societies that have a dysfunctional government, economy and society, extremism is like a siren song. It's all easy and very clear now: kill the ____, destroy the _____ and the problems are solved! Wrap it up in religion and it's an easier sell: ____ is unholy, kill them and we've won. Peter Van Uhm said this in his TED talk. Unstable countries breed extremists. Art and freedom can't flourish if the government can keep the streets paved and the power on.

Hence why many extremist groups are Missing Steps Plan: hate and kill then success. Actually governing is hard as ISIS is finding out the hard way.

edited 2nd Mar '15 11:29:07 PM by TairaMai

Nidal Hasan, the Ft Hood shooter, has been sentenced to death.

Of course, there's still the mandatory one automatic appeal, but given Hasan's previous "defense", I don't see it going much better for him. Couldn't happen to a nicer shitstain.

Great. So they've martyred him.

Every criminal sentenced by a civilized state is "martyred" to extremists. What's important is that Hasan has an appointment with a needle. Of course that's what he wanted, had the Fort Hood SWAT team shot him dead.

Plus it'll probably be a decade or two before he's put under, long after everyone has already forgotten he existed.

I'm not sure if that's better or worse than how we handled capital punishment, where (IIRC) convicted defendants were sent for the short drop within four weeks of sentence being passed.

edited 3rd Mar '15 4:53:25 AM by Deadbeatloser22

... Why the long wait? You'd think a criminal on death row would be dealt with as soon as possible (that is, as soon as the appeal process runs its course without a verdict/sentence change) to save resources, right?

All the appeals and legal procedures that the defense tends to mount in such situations. They take time to process.