The U.S. Military is Unequipped for High-Intensity Combat - eviltoast
  • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmygrad.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    The fact that making a profit is the main objective of arms manufactures is precisely why US military is ill equipped for high intensity combat. US arms manufacturers have incentive to produce expensive weapons that take a long time to manufacture and repair because that results in more funds being allocated to them. They also have an incentive to produce weapons in small volumes because the less they actually produce the lower their costs are.

    Meanwhile, high intensity combat the kind of which we’re seeing in Ukraine requires cheap weapons that are simple and reliable, and the ability to produce these weapons rapidly. This is basically the opposite of what US military industrial complex focuses on.

      • lorty@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        1 year ago

        Their “indestructible” Tiger tank was famous for breaking the transmission all the time and being a pain to repair.

        Soviet tanks were easy to fix.

      • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        USA itself also had that lesson once in the WW2, notice how (for famous example) submachine guns in the USA came from the original chicago piano to much simpler M1 and even that was too complicated so M3 was made. And even for the things that get more complicated like ships or planes, design and especially production was streamlined greatly, like building the 2700 liberty class vessels of which single ship took a month to build or 175 fletcher class destroyers. And note neither of those examples were really crap all served for decades after war.

        USA weapon industry now is like gutter corner of Ferdinand Porsche brain, but greedier.

    • Shrike502@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Arguably, it is more difficult to design and make a weapon system that would be cheap and reliable, as opposed to gimmick gizmo that costs like an apartment in Moscow and does a subpar job trying to replace some already existing system

    • relay@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      In Starcraft 1 terms:

      Ukraine is playing protoss but for some reason is only using very few scouts for air combat

      Russia is playing terran more or less in a balanced attack force but is using siege tanks alot because they know they’ll be able to outrange them in ground combat.

      to make matters more interesting, the terran Russia already built an army and has all of the resoureces they need before the war started. The protoss Ukrainians don’t have enough resources and the way that they build units are expensive as it is.