Kaisor: Gauss gun is just another name for a coil gun. They use the same general principle as rail guns that is electromagnetic propulsion. Coil guns can work with projectiles in one of two ways. One is the projectile itself is made of some sort ferromagnetic material. Iron and its alloys are often preferred because of how readily iron interacts with electromagnetic fields and for the high material strength found in various iron based materials. The other method is you have a non-ferromagnetic projectile but it is either in a ferromagnetic sabot or has a ferromagnetic armature as part of the projectile.

Rail guns use an armature of some sort to bridge the gap between the powered rails and create electrical current flow and an electromagnetic field which pushes a ferromagnetic projectile, armature, or sabot down the barrel. The projectile and armature can be the same thing or the sabot and armature can be the same thing.

edited 24th Mar '18 2:15:38 PM by TuefelHundenIV

SOCOM has begun picking up 6.5 Creedmoor rifles. [1]

edited 24th Mar '18 1:16:13 PM by archonspeaks

They picking them up for testing, niche use, specialist weapon, new mainline? Can't check the link at the moment.

edited 24th Mar '18 2:16:25 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Right now it looks like just the M110 and the Mk 20. It seems they also tested 260 Rem and .308 in both rifles.

The author of the article fired the 6.5 Mk 20 and was surprised by how little recoil there was. Speaking from experience with my SCAR that thing can kick, so I'm sure they're excited about how much more controllable it's going to be.

Ok so testing for the time being. Might be interesting to hear what they say after they are done.

It sounds like SOCOM ultimately wants to switch all of its DM Rs over to 6.5, and basically this is just them finally crossing out the competition and getting ready to move ahead with the project.

Double post, but here's an interesting one. CNN gets an exclusive look inside STRATCOM's command bunker at Offutt AFB. Our nuclear arsenal is overseen from there, and the base has had a long history with the nuclear program and later SAC, giving it a fairly apocalyptic reputation. Hearing from General Hyten is particularly interesting, he's a pretty cool guy. [1]

edited 25th Mar '18 11:46:50 AM by archonspeaks

So I've been doing a lot of reading about the American Revolution recently.

Something that stuns me is how in the flying fuck did Sir William Howe retain his generalship after almost singlehandedly blundering his command through the Battle of Breeds Hill? While the man's strategy for assaulting the American defensive line from their vulnerable rear was theoretically sound, he completely neglected to send scouting parties to determine exactly how well dug-in the defenders were. He then orders his three regiments to march directly up the slopes of Breeds Hill in broad daylight, who then get so cut up by American fire that almost every officer on his staff is killed or wounded by the battle's end. When advised to alter his strategy in light of such horrific losses, he instead draws troops from other British generals in Boston to personally lead another attack, which gets shot up just as badly as the first. He only succeeds on the third try due to the virtue of the Americans having run out of powder and ammunition and lacking bayonets on their muskets to effectively resist at close range.

British officer losses at Breed's Hill were so catastrophic that they account for nearly a quarter of all British officer casualties even at the end of the war.

Edit: One wonders how different history would have been if the British had opted for a nighttime assault and a Dawn Attack. After all, it had been established at Lexington & Concord that American militia lacked bayonets for their muskets and that they were poorly trained and disciplined for close combat.

edited 26th Mar '18 7:43:03 PM by FluffyMcChicken

Hero cadet from Loomis talks down suicidal jumper, finds stranded pilot in 3-day span

Cadet Bell had a very busy week.

Well done Mr. Bell.

Cadet Bell, thankyouverymuch.

Taipei Times is reporting that some Senators are supporting Taiwan’s plan to buy F-35, considering its massive modernization and aggressive war games near it.

The Army just needs to bite the bullet and do training for as long as the Marines. That way they can at least put in some extra PT to help out with the health issue in their preferred recruit pools.

Ten weeks isn't long enough? Navy bootcamp was only nine weeks when I went through it.

See, this is why the Air Force is better than the other services. It only takes us eight weeks to churn out battle-ready Airmen (not counting all the extra time they need for training to learn to do their actual jobs, I presume Army and Marines have similar schools to go to after Basic)

Mind you, when I was a trainee, it only took us six weeks. That said, took me twelve due to jacking up my knee plus being bad at pushups, but what can you do.

Marine Boot Camp is 13 weeks plus 8 weeks of now universal infantry/combat training for all MOS training then your job school if your not infantry. So generic training overall encompasses 21 weeks. They added 4 weeks for infantry in general and 6 for non infantry MOS.

edited 28th Mar '18 2:30:51 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Glad I already got all that out of the way. BOLC was 18 weeks, but we had a lot more freedom, so not nearly as bad. But going through six months of basic at Fort Leonard-Wood is a terrible thing to inflict on people.

I washed out of Basic when I was 19. Now, I'm too old to enlist or be drafted (and glad for that!)

Moving our nuclear discussion from the Israel thread to here.

You’re right, that’s why my focus isn’t on small nations attacking big ones, it’s on big ones attacking other big ones (or when medium powers have nukes other medium ones).

Thing is they did keep Israel safe, not in the traditional “deter an attack” way but in the “make sure that third parties back you conventionally so that you don’t feel the need to start shooting nukes”, it’s the same strategy used by Thatcher in the Falklands.

I think you’re vastly overestimating the effectiveness of missile shields, sure they can deter a small number of non-sophisticated nukes (so North Korea’s) but that’s about it, France and the UK still have second strike capability while Indian and Pakistan don’t have missile shields against each other.

Let’s look at the existing nuclear situations in the world.

• The EU’s internal peace is due to other reasons I agree on that, but the EU’s peace with Russia (at least when it comes to outright warfare) I’d credit in part to nuclear weapons making everyone take a step back, including over Ukraine.
• Pakistan and India, I’d certainly say that nukes have calmed things, at least so much as that neither side feels at risk of being wiped out by the other, there is still conflict, but it’s much more limited.
• Israel I’ve covered already.
• Saudi Arabia and Iran, part of why Saudi Arabia feels relatively secure about Iran is because it benefits from the Pakistani nuclear umbrella, which it trusts to secure it if Iran does develop nuclear weapons, so it can take the risk of a diplomatic deal with Iran to try and prevent nuclear escalation.
• North Korea, North Korea’s main deterrent against US invasion is conventional forces and that’s the same for South Korea’s deterrent against the North, however nuclear weapons do play a role, in that the US is deterred from going full Rambo on North Korea not just by the North’s conventional firepower but also by the risk of China getting involved and how a conflict with China involves the risk of nuclear escalation.
• Taiwan, the main deterrent against a mainland China invasion of Taiwan is the risk of escalation with the US, now that’s a risk for multiple reasons (the US’s large conventional power, the trade flow between China and the US, ect...) but one of the reasons is again that risk of nuclear escalation.

Existing peaceful situations generally aren’t built only on nuclear peace, but it’s a factor, the same as increasing globalisation making wars more costly for a nation’s economy, increasing public accountability making wars more domestically risky, increasing global peace self-reinforcing international condemnation of a breach of said peace, ect...

Hostilities continuing after what is typically called "nuclear blackmail" is unlikely. After nuclear threats in '53 in Korea, China felt it could not move without risking an attack and that stalemate ultimately led to the armistice. It would be a similar situation here. Neither Russia or the US would need to actually act on their nuclear threat, just the existence of it would be enough. As we've seen for the past 60 or so years, the existence of a nuclear threat is enough to radically change the dynamic of power between nations. Additionally, with the collective defense agreements we keep with our allies in Europe, and the fact that we have almost 200 nuclear weapons stationed there, use of nukes would be very much on the table for us.

In this European war situation, Russia and the US wouldn't be threatening each other but the countries fighting as well, That's the threat that would bring the war to a stalemate. Unless you're postulating insanity, no government will risk total annihilation like that when there is an easy alternative.

I again concur that Taiwan would be more or less fucked if it didn't have the USA's nukes backing them.

Air Force captain explains how she was kidnapped in Iraq at age 8

Nah, I'm fully aware that missile shields mostly aren't intended to stop all nukes coming in, but rather to give the people under it a chance to launch their own nukes before they die. But the technology for missile shields is out there now, it's going to be both improving and proliferating. And there are plenty of nations in the world who, upon acquiring missile shield technology and getting their own missile shield running, will act as if they are 100% protected.

Re: Russia and the Ukraine. What keeps Russia in check is that if there's a conflict where Russia is seen as the aggressor, it's going to find most of the world aligned against it and that's a war that Putin knows he can't survive (politically or, you know, literally). What keeps Europe 'in check' is that if there's a conflict where they're seen as the aggressor, it's going to result in most of the world having an excuse not to join up against Russia, at which point Russia has the military and political might to gobble up large parts of Europe and break the EU's back. Nukes are only a force multiplier in this, but the situation would still be the same without them.

And that's pretty much the same for every other situation you mentioned where nukes are involved, even the ROC/Taiwan. Because in the post-Cold War political situation what's keeping the PRC from annexing the ROC/Taiwan isn't fear of nuclear retaliation. Instead it's pretty much their (deluded) belief that the reunification of China under their banner is inevitable anyway, so invading isn't worth souring lucrative trade relations.

What you're not getting here is that nuking mainland Europe wouldn't be something that European nations would be opposed to out of the kindness of their hearts or some kind of feeling of European brotherhood... It's because we remember the goddamn Chernobyl disaster and know that a significant (number of) nuclear detonation(s) in one part of Europe doesn't leave the rest of the region unaffected. If you were to nuke, for instance, Switzerland, you'd be scattering the fallout across at least France, Austria, Germany and Italy (and the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxemburg through contamination of the Rhine) as well.

European nations, even if they're at war with each other, would not allow the threat, let alone that actual execution, of nuclear strikes on the European mainland, because that's literally (figuratively) cutting off your own nose to spite your face. Yes, yes, even with single nuclear weapons being a far different kind of detonation than Chernobyl.

Haven't got an English source for this, but the Russians are staging a military exercise in the Baltic, less than 10 kilometres from a Swedish naval base in Karlskrona (international waters though). The notice from Swedish flight control.◊

I think they got miffed by the diplomat expulsions.

edited 29th Mar '18 7:48:05 AM by TerminusEst