Modern submarine torpedo attacks are not like in the movies

The upward hit should actually be easier for a ship to resist because there is only air above the ship and it is “relatively” easy to lift the ship out of the water and into the air, but the downward pull means the ship is going to be pulled against the water and that will not move out of the way as easily or as quickly as the air. The second effect is what leads to the most damage.

Excerpt from DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:

> An important predictor to military service in the general population is family income. Those with lower family income are more likely to join the military than those with higher family income. Thus the military may indeed be a career option for those for whom there are few better opportunities.

I've seen it first hand. I've talked with people that have been impacted by it. I've also seen the corporate slight of hand that tries to disguise it. Components manufactured in China, shipped to Mexico for assembly, then shipped to the US to have some decorative panels and stickers slapped on so they can put a "made in USA" sticker on the side.

Go grab virtually anything from around your house (excluding food) and it's more likely than not that that thing was manufactured in whole or in part outside the US. That didn't used to be the case. Coming out of WW2 it was rare for people to own non-domestically produced goods.

This isn't a case of US manufacturing just being so ridiculously efficient that you just don't need many companies making things. That might hold water if most goods were still manufactured in the US, but they aren't. Cars are about the only manufactured consumer good still made in the US, and even they are quite often assembled in Mexico. Pretty much any electronic device is made in China.

Here's a case study, Ikea which is a very popular furniture manufacturer (among other things) mostly assembles their products in Mexico and China. They do have some US manufacturing, but that's largely because they acquired rights to some large swaths of woodland and it makes sense to process and assemble that on site.

To be clear, you mentioned agriculture, and yes, the US does have a thriving agriculture sector, but agriculture isn't manufacturing.

The US screwed up badly when it let basic manufacturing get outsourced. When the factories making screws and transistors are all based in other countries, eventually all the other factories are going to follow them.

Since Y can be increased arbitaraly (at the cost of channel data capacity), it's always possible to transmit some information to your ally without your enemy seeing a transmission, it might just be a few bits per second, but theres a lot you can do with a few bits per second in warfare.

One needs to make sure that the above holds true for all possible frequency windows and time windows, so no carrier waves or high power sync pulses!

I believe the implementation is much harder than the theory - just one crystal oscillator or PLL anywhere in your radio hardware will leak some of that frequency into the output, and since the bandwidth of a crystal oscillator is super low (obviously an ideal oscillator has zero bandwidth), even a tiny leak is detectable by an enemy.

Some more info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_low_frequency which has my favorite quote. “ ... few nations have built naval ELF transmitters to communicate with their submarines while submerged. China has recently constructed the world's largest ELF facility roughly the size of New York City in order to communicate with its submarine forces without having them to surface. ...”

The antenna needed for these transmissions requires a lot of land.

A major threat to a submarine is all the helicopters and patrol aircraft with their dipping sonars etc. There are some really great pics taken from periscopes of opposition helicopters during the cold war. Nothing you'd want to see in a hot war neither.

It seems good to throw a little missile at the helicopter you've just spotted approaching, to give them something to evade and worry about as you make your escape?

The Luftwaffe could have taken out a squadron of P-51s with just a handful of fighters. This would have required the AAC to then launch a bunch of fighters to protect the long range fighters until the tank was burned off, significantly hampering their power.

The P-51 was basically unable to turn with the center of gravity so far back.

The F100 was the first jet that could fly supersonic in level flight. It was known as the widowmaker, as it was basically a subsonic aircraft that could go supersonic, with pre-supersonic cockpit and controls. The workload on the pilots was intense, and many pilots died in flight school.

Since it was basically obsolete, it was used as ground attack aircraft, with fighter support provided by F105s.

Source: family member flew F100s in Vietnam

No. The National Guard had them through the 1960s but jet fighter technology was moving so fast at the time that they were not in front line service by the time the US had any involvement in Vietnam.

[1] https://www.schlockmercenary.com/2010-08-29

https://www.amazon.com/Sidewinder-Creative-Missile-Developme...

0. https://combatace.com/forums/topic/91818-the-f-4-phantom-and...

In terms of defence gaining an edge over defense; I don't really think so. Offence is always cheaper. Think nukes.

They would not form deep columns to punch through, only one nation used solid squares in that age and that was the Prussian army. The French would form battalion columns which are pairs of companys deployed individually in lines after each other. Most of the brittish vs column memes are from ambushes where naturally the ambushed part had not time to deploy to line.

http://www.napolun.com/mirror/napoleonistyka.atspace.com/inf... " The Prussians formed their battalions (4 companies each) rather in closed columns than hollow squares. Their regulations issued in 1812 (Exercir Reglement fur die Infanterie) eliminated the hollow square in favour of a dense column formed from the Angriffscolonne."

The french moved to contact in maneuver columns, Just Like Everybody Else Did As Well. The fact that you don't hear the brittish doing it is because they very seldom advanced at all in any battle. This is what we still do, we march manourver battalions in columns on roads and deploy mechanized forced out to a line once we are close to the enemy.

" - however, if the enemy kept his cool and opened fire only at close range, the officers instead of tightening the column, they deployed it into line and opened fire. As soon as the enemy began wavering under the fire they charged with bayonets. In 1805 at Austerlitz, French columns advanced with great coolness and at slow pace. The Russian infantry fired at long range but the French continued their march until they were 100 paces away from the enemy. They halted and opened fire, then "formed in several lines" and rapidly moved forward. The enemy fled. Captain Bonnet described similar infantry attack at Borodino; after few minutes the Russian skirmishers arrived in good order a little to the left "... and a dense column to our right. I deploy my battalion and, without firing, march straight at the column. It recoils. When carrying out this movement we were so exposed to grapeshot from the guns in the village that I saw my battalion falling and being breached like a crenellated wall. But still we went on.""

And by the way the nation which most frequently deployed "spread out" troops are, wait for it, the French!

"Several companies or even battalions could be employed as skirmishers (tirailleurs en grande bande). The tiralleurs en grande bande acted in large numbers, stormed or defended a position, or turned the flank of the enemy. The large skirmish formations were usually supported by columns and artillery. At Friedland General Oudinot had deployed 2 full battalions as skirmishers into the Sortlack Wood. In 1814 at La Rothiere four French battalions were formed in skirmish order by La Giberie to anticipate any attack which might develop in the rear of the wood. The French on occasion deployed even entire divisions [!] in skirmish formations. (Nafziger - "Imperial Bayonets" 1996 p 111) In 1806 at Jena, the French 16th Light Infantry advanced left in front towards the woods: its third battalion advanced en tirailleurs (in skirmish order) towards the wood, the first and second battalion, marching still in column, went past the right of the woods and deployed into line in the plain at musket range from the Prussian battery."

"The British well-drilled regulars were humiliated by American farmers, militia and Indians fighting in lose order. The american experience made a profound impact and resulted in tactical and organizational changes in the British army. But still the quality of the British skirmishers (except the 60th and 95th Regiment) was below their French counterparts. French General Foy wrote: "Several regiments of the line, such as the [British] 43rd, the 51st, the 52nd etc., are called light infantry regiments. These corps, as well as the light companies of the battalions, have nothing light about them but the name; for they are armed and with some slight change in the decorations, clothed like the rest of the infantry. It was considered that the English soldier did not possess sufficient intelligence and address to combine with the regular duty of the line the service of inspiration of the sharpshooter."

A Royal Scots officer wrote after Waterloo, that the French skirmishers were better trained, and on the whole much more effective in this type of fighting than the British skirmishers. (Barbero - "The Battle" p 255)

Moyle Sherer of the 34th Foot wrote on the British skirmishers: "Not a soul….was in the village, but a wood a few hundred yards to its left, and the ravines above it, were filled with French light infantry. I, with my company, was soon engaged in smart skirmishing among the ravines, and lost about 11 men, killed and wounded, out of thirty-eight. The English do not skirmish so well as the Germans or the French; and it is really hard work to make them preserve their proper extended order, cover themselves, and not throw away their fire; and in the performance of this duty, an officer is, I think, far more exposed that in line fighting." (Rory Muir- "Tactics and the Experience of Battle in the Age of Napoleon")"

Sophisticated technology was always part of the issue no matter how far back in time you go. What changed is the mentality. 50 years ago you had to deliver because the enemy was at your door. Today companies realized that they can make far more money by just dragging it out for decades through the magic of a cost-plus contract and subcontracting. The kind of arrangement that keeps entire subcontracting companies going forever even if they only tread water and never deliver anything.

If anything, sophisticated computers and software just made it easier to drag your feet because unlike building the actual plane, coding is not that capital intensive. You just need your coders constantly writing code and picking up a paycheck while shipping eternal pre-alpha builds.

Imagine being given an order to kill a terrorist, but you notice the place he is at is actually a wedding. A fighter pilot has final authority on the strike, he can make decisions about collateral damage. Beyond that, if a fighter pilot engaged an enemy aircraft he coule be starting a war,you can't make the same quality of observation about the enemy pilots,their intent and threat.

Humans make different decisions if they are detached from the scene. I agree the piloting and targeting should be mostly automated away but final decison should be done by someone at the scene risking their own lives

The paradigm we're moving out of was one where you'd get high-quality sensor data from a specialized patrol or AWACS plane like an E-3, which would send information to ground, which would relay it to the fighters. Now, platforms like the F-35 often have better sensors than patrol planes do; and despite still having a person inside, are better at evading missiles than big patrol planes are. So it's more like the fighters take on the role of the patrol planes; the human inside decides what to do, probably assimilating information from other fighters; and sends the drones out to do acrobatics. And there's no need to run that information through a ground station first.