Careercow William S. Lind - Crazy Pentagon Reformer & Paleoconservative. The man behind cultural marxism. No, seriously.

[Techpriest]

Anyone who believe that a T-34 tank is able to stand up to modern arms is an idiot. Period. They would be destroyed by a lesser numbers of M1a1 Abrams, even the older models.
The newest models of t-34 are from 1944! Their cannons wouldn't be able to penetrate armour of an M1a1 abrams.
Also, if there was a separatist movement as described in the book with 1000 of tanks, they would sent in the airforce to bomb the shit out of them. A-10 would turn them into scrap metal.
Also, no sane army would send in a division of f******* gangbangers!
Remember, this guy as a master in history! He should know better!

Even if we ignore air power, the AT weapons a company of modern troops has at their disposal makes mincemeat of them. ATGMs like TOW's and Dragons, the fucking 40mm grenade launcher with HESH would kill several crew on impact, the Bradley has an auto cannon capable of shredding a T-34 to bits, not to mention shoulder fired launchers like the AT-4 or even the LAW. On a regimental and brigade level you start to get into artillery and your own tank units attatched to your mechanized forces. Plus as you mentioned even T-34-85's with HEAT rounds would have no way through an Abrams.

EDIT: In the meantime while I'm digging into Victoria and to prevent a double post, I will leave you with his training manual and fanfiction about the K.u.K Marines.

I'm serious. They're called that.

 

[Foltest]

If Lind want to write a work about separatist fighting against the military, he should have made them use guerrilla tactics, which he written about before! Let them use tactics that a real guerrilla group would use. Let the army use counter-insurgency against them.

 

[Mikemikev]

Plus as you mentioned even T-34-85's with HEAT rounds would have no way through an Abrams.

T-85 is APFSDS capable, 100mm. It's certainly possible to take out an Abrams with a well placed shot and they wouldn't want to sit around with those coming in.

There's another reason we need the F-35, and that's because we've got a massive fleet of aging F-16's and F-15's that are going to need replacing from wear and tear over the coming decades, and the F-35's per unit cost is fucking incredible. They actually managed to get it BELOW what they originally predicted, not shitting you. Pretty good for a a trillion dollar (including acquisition, lifetime maintenance, and research) program.

Except that the other option is flying airframes until they fail, which will cost lives. And maintenance actually decreases on the F-35 in regards to man hours needed per flight hour compared to the F-16, the plane it is mainly replacing. The F-35 also benefits from a very very very modular avionics suite, allowing upgrades to be easier and cheapr. Over time, upgrading say an F-16 to have the same capabilities as an F-35 becomes more and more expensive, and performance goes down faster and faster as weight increases. Pods such as LANTIRN and Sniper are integrated into the F-35, along with jammers, meaning you don't need to spend time attaching and calibrating these pods while doing mission prep, or detaching them depending on the requirements. The lack of pods also increases overall performance, which is kind of important. The F-35 also has a fucking HILARIOUSLY long strike radius without needing external fuel tanks. This is part of the reason why the F-35C was requested by the Navy, rather than them going for an entirely new aircraft, as the Super Hornet (F-18 E/F) is notoriously short legged.

Another reason the F35 is a good idea is that it's optimised against tactical X-band radar. People often contrast the A10 with the F35, preferring the A10. A10s were going down in Iraq mostly due to MANPADs, and that would be much worse against a technically competent opponent. Even third worlders are going to get upgrades over time. The A10 is pretty much obsolete as CAS. I think people like it because of its big cannon and heavy armor, ie. it looks tough. But on an electronic battlefield the thing is fucked.

"The man behind cultural marxism. No, seriously."

Wut? Lind named cultural Marxism.

(BTW my "edit post" facility is disabled)

 

[Techpriest]

T-85 is APFSDS capable, 100mm. It's certainly possible to take out an Abrams with a well placed shot and they wouldn't want to sit around with those coming in.

Another reason the F35 is a good idea is that it's optimised against tactical X-band radar. People often contrast the A10 with the F35, preferring the A10. A10s were going down in Iraq mostly due to MANPADs, and that would be much worse against a technically competent opponent. Even third worlders are going to get upgrades over time. The A10 is pretty much obsolete as CAS. I think people like it because of its big cannon and heavy armor, ie. it looks tough. But on an electronic battlefield the thing is fucked.

"The man behind cultural marxism. No, seriously."

Wut? Lind named cultural Marxism.

(BTW my "edit post" facility is disabled)

OK for starters, there were never any variants of the T-34 that ever accepted the 100mm gun and were accepted into production. There was a proof of concept model done by the soviets, and a Czech proposal to upgun old T-34/85's to retrofit them to be capable of having a 100mm main gun, but that went nowhere as the T-54 and T-55 were both in production at that point. Even then, the maximum penetration of the 85mm gun most T-34/85 varients mounted with standard AP projectiles at less than 100m is something akin to 175mm of steel at a perfect 90%, and only 50% of those shots penetrate. Basically, the average penetration of the 85 is nowhere near enough to kill an Abrams from pretty much any angle, and the firecontrol and accuracy of these guns on the 85 is very much utter garbage.

You hit the next one straight on the head.

Yes, and as such he's behind the concept of cultural marxism as we understand it as used by the alt-right cucks on /pol/.

 

[Mikemikev]

OK for starters, there were never any variants of the T-34 that ever accepted the 100mm gun and were accepted into production. There was a proof of concept model done by the soviets, and a Czech proposal to upgun old T-34/85's to retrofit them to be capable of having a 100mm main gun, but that went nowhere as the T-54 and T-55 were both in production at that point. Even then, the maximum penetration of the 85mm gun most T-34/85 varients mounted with standard AP projectiles at less than 100m is something akin to 175mm of steel at a perfect 90%, and only 50% of those shots penetrate. Basically, the average penetration of the 85 is nowhere near enough to kill an Abrams from pretty much any angle, and the firecontrol and accuracy of these guns on the 85 is very much utter garbage.

Perhaps there is some confusion here. When you say "T34/85" do you mean a T35 with an 85mm gun, or T34s or T85s? The T85 was a Romanian variant of the T54 and always had a 100mm gun. So could you write T85 or 85mm, instead of "85"? Sorry, not trying to be funny, I thought you were talking about the T85.

 

[Techpriest]

Perhaps there is some confusion here. When you say "T34/85" do you mean a T35 with an 85mm gun, or T34s or T85s? The T85 was a Romanian variant of the T54 and always had a 100mm gun. So could you write T85 or 85mm, instead of "85"? Sorry, not trying to be funny, I thought you were talking about the T85.

Ah, I see.