ya it's a tradeoff btwn getting people to slow down and keeping it so it's like you're evesdropping on expert talk. I bend towards the latter but see arguments for the former! tbh I had to look some of this stuff up afterwards as well!
This really was like evesdropping on experts, and I can appreciate that you just want them to go on without being interrupted. But I would like to know more about the mid-range missiles (200km, 200 pounds of explosive). And about the Eric Schmidt company (about which maybe he'd think the less said the better until he has products to sell to the Pentagon--but I'd think this is exactly the private initiative which you'd want).
I think it's fine. Especially since it's a transcript. When I hit mention of something I'm not familiar with, search is my friend. I learn more and build my reference stack that way. I'd rather the author prioritize sharing over glossary building / over explaining.
Copperhead artillery round from the 1970's. It's a 'guided' artillery round that homes in on a target being laser-painted by a forward observer. You call artillery fire with 'enough' accuracy so that when the Copperhead shell is on descent, it will be able to see what's being painted in it's possible zone of impact, and then it has just enough fins that it can steer itself to hit that thing. Whatever it is. Copperhead shells were only smart enough to home in on bright lights of exactly the correct wavelength, they don't know what the light is shining ON.
Same term gets re-used for lots of science-fiction artillery shells that operate on more-or-less the same basis. In theory, modern tech is probably getting close enough that you could just take a high-angle photo of the target from a raised platform or mast or something, and as long as one real-time photograph was transmitted to the artillery shell WHILE the artillery shell was currently looking at the target area mid-flight, that might be good enough for the shell to finish terminal guidance just using on board image-recognition software. Calling such a system "Copperhead II" would probably be justified.
I actually knew what the term was because I first encountered it in science fiction miniatures game as a description of a specific sub-type of artillery shell, and then looked it up just now to find out when the term first came into use; turns out it was the 1970's.
When I read these posts, it continues to reinforce my concern that we should worry a lot less about learning the wrong lessons from Ukraine, and a lot more about failing to take away the many, many lessons that will be fungible.
It's amazing to see the character of fighting change in near-real time.
The point about C2 is going to become more and more germane: a Lt will soon own more battlespace than at any point in history. Whether that is good or bad is not nearly as important as dealing with the fact it's imminent.
We need a glossary/explainer.
A PVS-14 is a single-tube night-vision monocular
In the Marines, Carl Gustavs are the Carl Gustaf 84 mm recoilless rifle
What are Copperhead drones?
TBI means traumatic brain injury
CQB I guess is Close-Quarter Battle
Eric Schmidt’s company is a good example?
And others
Great discussion, but a lot of insider terminology.
ya it's a tradeoff btwn getting people to slow down and keeping it so it's like you're evesdropping on expert talk. I bend towards the latter but see arguments for the former! tbh I had to look some of this stuff up afterwards as well!
This really was like evesdropping on experts, and I can appreciate that you just want them to go on without being interrupted. But I would like to know more about the mid-range missiles (200km, 200 pounds of explosive). And about the Eric Schmidt company (about which maybe he'd think the less said the better until he has products to sell to the Pentagon--but I'd think this is exactly the private initiative which you'd want).
I think it's fine. Especially since it's a transcript. When I hit mention of something I'm not familiar with, search is my friend. I learn more and build my reference stack that way. I'd rather the author prioritize sharing over glossary building / over explaining.
Copperhead artillery round from the 1970's. It's a 'guided' artillery round that homes in on a target being laser-painted by a forward observer. You call artillery fire with 'enough' accuracy so that when the Copperhead shell is on descent, it will be able to see what's being painted in it's possible zone of impact, and then it has just enough fins that it can steer itself to hit that thing. Whatever it is. Copperhead shells were only smart enough to home in on bright lights of exactly the correct wavelength, they don't know what the light is shining ON.
Same term gets re-used for lots of science-fiction artillery shells that operate on more-or-less the same basis. In theory, modern tech is probably getting close enough that you could just take a high-angle photo of the target from a raised platform or mast or something, and as long as one real-time photograph was transmitted to the artillery shell WHILE the artillery shell was currently looking at the target area mid-flight, that might be good enough for the shell to finish terminal guidance just using on board image-recognition software. Calling such a system "Copperhead II" would probably be justified.
Thanks. I would not have been looking at 70s-era artillery shells.
I actually knew what the term was because I first encountered it in science fiction miniatures game as a description of a specific sub-type of artillery shell, and then looked it up just now to find out when the term first came into use; turns out it was the 1970's.
When I read these posts, it continues to reinforce my concern that we should worry a lot less about learning the wrong lessons from Ukraine, and a lot more about failing to take away the many, many lessons that will be fungible.
It's amazing to see the character of fighting change in near-real time.
The point about C2 is going to become more and more germane: a Lt will soon own more battlespace than at any point in history. Whether that is good or bad is not nearly as important as dealing with the fact it's imminent.
From FLOT to FLUAVT!
Please define acronyms. China Talk uses them PROMISCOUSLY in most all posts.
Not all of us are conversant with the "inside baseball" jargon of multiple subjects.:
AI, Military ,etc.