this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2023
157 points (83.1% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

6672 readers
1188 users here now

A community for your defence shitposting needs

Rules

1. Be niceDo not make personal attacks against each other, call for violence against anyone, or intentionally antagonize people in the comment sections.

2. Explain incorrect defense articles and takes

If you want to post a non-credible take, it must be from a "credible" source (news article, politician, or military leader) and must have a comment laying out exactly why it's non-credible. Low-hanging fruit such as random Twitter and YouTube comments belong in the Matrix chat.

3. Content must be relevant

Posts must be about military hardware or international security/defense. This is not the page to fawn over Youtube personalities, simp over political leaders, or discuss other areas of international policy.

4. No racism / hatespeech

No slurs. No advocating for the killing of people or insulting them based on physical, religious, or ideological traits.

5. No politics

We don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Stalinist, Baathist, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door. This applies to comments as well.

6. No seriousposting

We don't want your uncut war footage, fundraisers, credible news articles, or other such things. The world is already serious enough as it is.

7. No classified material

Classified ‘western’ information is off limits regardless of how "open source" and "easy to find" it is.

8. Source artwork

If you use somebody's art in your post or as your post, the OP must provide a direct link to the art's source in the comment section, or a good reason why this was not possible (such as the artist deleting their account). The source should be a place that the artist themselves uploaded the art. A booru is not a source. A watermark is not a source.

9. No low-effort posts

No egregiously low effort posts. E.g. screenshots, recent reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title. Put these in weekly Matrix chat instead.

10. Don't get us banned

No brigading or harassing other communities. Do not post memes with a "haha people that I hate died… haha" punchline or violating the sh.itjust.works rules (below). This includes content illegal in Canada.

11. No misinformation

NCD exists to make fun of misinformation, not to spread it. Make outlandish claims, but if your take doesn’t show signs of satire or exaggeration it will be removed. Misleading content may result in a ban. Regardless of source, don’t post obvious propaganda or fake news. Double-check facts and don't be an idiot.


Join our Matrix chatroom


Other communities you may be interested in


Banner made by u/Fertility18

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 149 points 1 year ago (2 children)

A laser that is powerful enough to hurt a human target (especially a human target with body armor) is going to be powerful enough that it'll be ionizing the air to some degree. It'll be like a lightning bolt, there'll be flashes of light and sharp cracking sounds. That's also ignoring the fact that the random bits of terrain that the laser is hitting will also be exploding. Someone under "suppressing fire" from a laser weapon would be quite aware of the fact.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Also whatever you're using to generate that much energy will make noise as well

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

Yes, but it might be a power plant hundreds of kms away.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The pure joy of putting a single joule of optical power into a sub nanosecond pulse.

For those not familiar with lasers, that's a GW of instantaneous power that you can focus down to a micron sized spot.

https://youtu.be/Z1Xky_ermd4?si=1Luz0fuzm4kcwIwc

All that said, the successful laser weapons right now seem to all be anti drone/aircraft and they are typically using tracked CW (not pulsed) lasers with heating over time to avoid atmospheric lensing. Lots of challenges to overcome in getting pulsed energy a long way through air.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I was wondering if we'd see pulsed lasers in anti-drone warfare.... the power supply advantages aside, focusing on just the right point in time with the pulse seems hard.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The hard part is predicting atmospheric effects to get the focus right. It's basically impossible without some form of just in time compensation. One idea I've seen is that you fire a physical projectile and use that to calibrate the focal point at arbitrary distance, almost like a laser tracer.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

It might be hard, but with the processing power we can fit into microchips these days I'd say we fixed harder problems already. I mean, the controller needs at least two cameras or another methode of locating the target and estimating the distance, but I'd guess we could completely get rid of time of flight calculations as the light pulse would be instant for that matter.

But again: I'm just guessing here

[–] [email protected] 75 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Suppressive fire is already an obselete doctrine. That's why the British army is replacing their machine guns with DMRs (Canadian military may be heading in the same direction).

Turns out turning a motherfuckers head into a fine red mist with a 7.62 tends to make everyone else around them really eager to seek cover. The threat of a well placed shot has a far better suppressing effect than the reality of a bunch of inaccurate fire.

[–] [email protected] 38 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

What's with the credible takes?

Sir this is NCD

[–] [email protected] 49 points 1 year ago (4 children)

May I propose a fully-automatic, belt-fed 7.62 sniper rifle as a noncredible happy medium?

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago

borderlands has entered the chat

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

Now this is the quality content I come here for

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think you meant to say .22LR APFSDS DMGG (designated marksman gatling gun)

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Curious where you found a credible take.

This "we're past machine guns now" thing has been tried multiple times before, including by the brits.

our rifles will shoot better instead

our rifles will shoot more instead

I wonder what MG they'll get after this doesn't work

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago

I'd imagine a sniper is probably one of the most effective ways to suppress a group. They probably don't know where the shots are coming from, and don't know when it's safe to move again.

Having said that, I would imagine there are situations where traditional suppression is better. A hail of bullets against the side of an APC is probably terrifying even if none of them are getting through. It's going to be tough to get someone to open the hatch as the bullets are flying in. But, with designated marksmen only, you'd have to wait until the enemy tries to get out of the APC and then make a tough shot to hit them as they do.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

So, basically what the USSR did ? (IIRC, machine gunners and sharpshooters carrying some semi auto scoped rifle were basically interchangeable in their doctrine, at least during WW2)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Designated_marksman_rifle for those who had no idea what the fuck a DMR was.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I don't know, I'd probably at least duck if the fucking Macrowave started ionizing the piss out of the air near my face.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

I am a simple man. I see styropyro and I upvote while he is still alive.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago (3 children)

You also wont be able to see them with the naked eye. Imagine you're on patrol and your buddy drops dead and there was no sound and no visible sign except the crackling from the fire that carved a hole in his chest. War is already scary enough tyvm. Everyone is going to have to wear white or reflective gear.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

or reflective gear

It would be fun if the silver spandex of classic Sci-Fi turned out to be standard uniforms to counter laser fire.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Just like with snipers today, although i suspect that giant laser is not optimal weapon in high stakes hide and seek game

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (5 children)

If there's a constellation of them orbiting a few hundred kilometers up they'll be pretty optimal. Like fairly optimal. Sufficiently optimal.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You can't hide those from ground-based anti-satellite laser

It'll be like with GBAD in Ukraine but in space, and satellites can shoot at other satellites too

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Okay, hear me out: camouflage. Desert camo for the satellites orbiting between Earth and Mars. Ocean gray for satellites orbiting between Earth and Neptune. And we can get Hugo Boss to design the camouflage for the satellites between the Earth and the moon.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

satisfactorily optimal.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

I like your style

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

If they are wearing white, all the better to see them, and use a variety of guns on them. Besides, no white is perfect, even when clean, (which won't last long) so the laser would still chew them up.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Also depends on the frequency of radiation used. Does it reflect infrared or microwaves? UV?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Yeah, a large part of suppressive fire is that the enemy doesn’t want to be randomly wounded.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And ironically, some armies are moving away from it because they’ve realized that suppressive fire isn’t super effective in modern urban warfare. When you’re trying to “suppress” someone in a building, there’s a good chance that they can just relocate and continue firing before you have a chance to move up. Your suppressive fire is suddenly aiming at the wrong area and isn’t doing anything.

Instead, some armies (like the British armed forces) have started focusing on quality over quantity. Turns out, when every shot has a good chance to turn you to paste, you’re much more inclined to stay in cover. Even when you’re not being actively suppressed, knowing that they have a dozen scoped 7.62 rifles trained on your location means you’re hesitant to even peek your head out. They don’t need to burn through ammo to keep you suppressed, and the suppression is more effective. The occasional “hey we still have rifles aimed at you” warning shot is enough to keep them behind cover.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

How does this tactic work when counting for light machine guns?

specifically a SAW or 240B. Which as I understand is the largest enemy casualty producing weapon carried by a U.S. army member.

I don’t know if it really counts as suppressive fire or just overwhelming fire power at that point

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Those are more of an area denial weapon. Less "suppressing fire" and more "oppressing fire"

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago

The purpose of suppressive fire is to force the enemy to keep their heads down, so that you can flank them or something. Unless what you're firing is harmless, it could be used to suppress.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You're telling me lasers don't go "pew pew pew"?!

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

You’re supposed to make the “pew pew pew” noises as you fire.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

They'd have to install a manual Pew switch. Go quiet for infiltration, or turn up the speakers for indimidation factor.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If Star Wars has taught me anything, this is incorrect, well still be sitting at about a 35% hit rate.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

At very high power levels they would displace air via conduction heating.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

We gotta make the guns make the PEW PEW PEW sounds

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

If people were not aware of the suppressive fire, you'd be shooting it and watch people melt out of nowhere

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yeah but now we get to add cool sound effects to the guns

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

By international law, they have to play Darude's "Sandstorm."

Even close air support.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Sonic ring chime

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm just sad that plasma weapons are essentially a no-go in an atmospheric environment...

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

plasma glows so it's visible from far away, why not check out this sick neutral particle beam that already works https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a26858944/pentagon-particle-beam-space-2023/

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Meh. If I saw a bunch of people pointing shit at me and the smell of ozone that would work, probably indefinitely.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Time to fall back to suppressive drone strikes!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

They sound like this "pew pew pewww"

load more comments
view more: next ›