NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #6

[Immoren]

I wonder if giving modern motorized battalion a platoon of apcs to act as slightly more armoured taxi service be silly?

[The Kievan People]

It has some torpedo tubes and sonar, plus a tilt rotor compliment, which could maybe be used against subs? Though regular helicopters would be better at that roll in the end, and no mention is made of carrying equipment for the tilt rotor craft to engage enemy subs.

Also makes mention of an "anti submarine missile", which apparently is a missile that carries some form of super torpedo. I think, doesn't really explain how it works.

Attack the weak point for massive damage!

Its ASW and AA armaments are absolutely lulz. Buts its ASuW defenses are hardly better than a standard destroyer. It's probably as load as a carrier battle group to boot.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

I wonder if giving modern motorized battalion a platoon of apcs to act as slightly more armoured taxi service be silly?

It doesn't sound like it'd do much.

[The New Lowlands]

If it doesn't melt, that's not likely to happen.

noted

I suppose it was kind of a stupid idea

time to build some air bases

I yearn for the day when the interesting becomes the practical

*EDIT*

wouldn't an airbase built on ice be susceptible to things like napalm or, given that this is an alt earth and the need for a defensive force out on the ice comes from having long standing hostilities with the nation across the ice, some sort of specifically developed incendiary that would melt the ice? Also, I don't know much about the strength of sea ice, but wouldn't ground penetrating bombs and cruise missiles wreck a base built directly on the ice?

As I understand it, they're hitting your airfield, it would render it useless pretty much regardless of what they hit it with, depending on what kind of planes you're using.

[Velkanika]

This argument is like clubbing baby orphan seals. No matter what you do, I'm going to turn you into a hat.

So basically it engages all targets which aren't marked friendly on NTDS, that's the opposite of how I would assume it would work but OK.

The operator can mass-select targets and change their category, not just one at a time. They can also designate zones in the sky that have different categories.

It will never be used except in areas where there are zero or nil chances for civilian casualties, which is nowhere. North Atlantic would certainly have civilian traffic, both European refugees and reinforcements from CONUS, so your statement that it would be "completely off limits" is false (and quite asinine tbh, why would major civilian traffic ways be off limits?).

Actually, it would be used when civilian casualties become acceptable losses. 200 dead civvies is a drop in the bucket compared to a sunk aircraft carrier.

Anyways, airliners are tagged as neutral contacts by the operators as they enter radar range. In time of war, they'd be marked as unknown until someone ID'd it. In this case, the carrier air group can do that easily enough before it comes anywhere near SAM range.

Commercial flights would be diverted down through Africa and across the South Atlantic or out through Asia to prevent any possibility of an accidental shoot-down once hostilities commenced. Airlines routinely divert flights around active conflict zones so they don't run the risk of loosing aircraft and passengers, and all NATO commercial airlines would have been madly airlifting people before the war started so they'd be free for Operation REFORGER.

Though I suppose in your revisionist history USS Vincennes never happened and Iran Air Flight 655 never flew during the Iran-Iraq War (not to mention the numerous other Tehran-Dubai flights between 1980 and 1988), but ok. We'll go with your almost delusional beliefs instead of historical facts. (:

Flight 655 was shot down in manual-operation mode due to operator error. The computer knew exactly what it was and categorized it as a low threat target. Half the radar techs thought it was an F-14 due to an unergonomic computer interface design problem. If the computer was acting autonomously, it would not have fired unless Flight 655 undertook some kind of action it interpreted as hostile, such as diving toward the ship or activating a targeting radar.

What did you just parrot all that from the Spark Notes' of Friedman's Guide to World Naval Weapons?

Modern Naval Combat by David Miller actually.

Bearing in mind I've never actually stated I know anything about Aegis, so your comment here is not only asinine but also totally irrelevant. I suppose it's not enough that I correct you on the "thousands" of target tracks and "hundreds" of missile guidance (bearing in mind that again, you're limited by illumination radars) you claimed earlier (quite adamantly, you even demanded that I source my common knowledge of Aegis "academically"), so yes I am clearly in the wrong for professing knowledge I do not possess.

I prostrate myself before you in deepest apology for having violated your domain of both orbital space debris radar tracking systems AND naval combat systems. Clearly such an academic heavyweight as yourself has little time for the ignorance of poor me, but I beseech you to find time in your busy day when you aren't furiously Google book searching every minor scrap of knowledge and repeating it in an attempt to save your own ass to forgive me for my transgression.

You claimed that an exact number is the absolute tracking limit, and I want to know where you got that number from. I suspect the inner reaches of your colon.

[Tarsas]

Torpedo carrying missile is ARSOC. It exists.

[Zeinbrad]

I got an idea for rebels commonly using bicycles to get around. If they don't have any other method to get there, or need to get there stealthily.

Is this a good or bad idea?

[Tarsas]

I got an idea for rebels commonly using bicycles to get around. If they don't have any other method to get there, or need to get there stealthily.

Is this a good or bad idea?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vespa_150_TAP
Just gonna leave this here as a side note.

What kind of rebels are they? What terrain are they fighting on?

[Velkanika]

I got an idea for rebels commonly using bicycles to get around. If they don't have any other method to get there, or need to get there stealthily.

Is this a good or bad idea?

This is a terrible idea. If your rebels have no other form of transportation, taking off their uniforms and walking to the next objective is a better option. Alternately, they can commandeer civilian transportation and get there all the same.

[Imperializt Russia]

I got an idea for rebels commonly using bicycles to get around. If they don't have any other method to get there, or need to get there stealthily.

Is this a good or bad idea?

Welcome to World Wars I and II.

[Spirit of Hope]

I got an idea for rebels commonly using bicycles to get around. If they don't have any other method to get there, or need to get there stealthily.

Is this a good or bad idea?

Bicycles are a quick mode of transport that doesn't let off more signature than a regular human. However to move quickly, with larger loads, they need a rode or other semi-inproved surface. Additionally it can't carry much more equipment than a marching human could. It is a set of trade offs, but not a bad idea.

[Immoren]

I got an idea for rebels commonly using bicycles to get around. If they don't have any other method to get there, or need to get there stealthily.

Is this a good or bad idea?

Welcome to World Wars I and II.

i can't be only one whose armed forces still trains their troops for bicycle marches, despite near 100 motorization rate?

[Krazeria]

OTH was more of a "if it could have it with little determent, then why not" type deal, but if air borne OTH is better then it could be done

now that I think of it I don't think my air force has any air borne OTH

To clarify: Airborne OTH would not be an actual flying OTH array (which will be at least a kilometer across), but a typical AWACS which is sufficiently high up that the horizon appears very far away.

If you want an AWACS aircraft which can land on hastily built airstrips and remain operable in severe weather, the Antonov An-71 may be a good place to start.

Of coarse

if I recall correctly, didn't 1km long ekronoplans come up awhile back...

[The Soodean Imperium]

I got an idea for rebels commonly using bicycles to get around. If they don't have any other method to get there, or need to get there stealthily.

Is this a good or bad idea?

This is a terrible idea. If your rebels have no other form of transportation, taking off their uniforms and walking to the next objective is a better option. Alternately, they can commandeer civilian transportation and get there all the same.

For the record, there's nothing stopping them from doing both - i.e., taking off their uniforms and biking to the next objective. Granted, they'll likely want to spread out, as a dozen or so people biking in a close group might attract suspicion.

Though the rural highlands of Afghanistan are just about one of the most dirt-poor places on earth, yet bands of Taliban have been known to traverse it on motorcycle. If you're in a sufficiently isolated place with a sufficiently low density of patrols, that might not necessarily be a terrible idea.

[Imperializt Russia]

I got an idea for rebels commonly using bicycles to get around. If they don't have any other method to get there, or need to get there stealthily.

Is this a good or bad idea?

This is a terrible idea. If your rebels have no other form of transportation, taking off their uniforms and walking to the next objective is a better option. Alternately, they can commandeer civilian transportation and get there all the same.

What? Entire airborne units did this over France and the Netherlands.

[Velkanika]

This is a terrible idea. If your rebels have no other form of transportation, taking off their uniforms and walking to the next objective is a better option. Alternately, they can commandeer civilian transportation and get there all the same.

For the record, there's nothing stopping them from doing both - i.e., taking off their uniforms and biking to the next objective. Granted, they'll likely want to spread out, as a dozen or so people biking in a close group might attract suspicion.

Though the rural highlands of Afghanistan are just about one of the most dirt-poor places on earth, yet bands of Taliban have been known to traverse it on motorcycle. If you're in a sufficiently isolated place with a sufficiently low density of patrols, that might not necessarily be a terrible idea.

Motorcycles are a better option IMO because you can travel faster with less effort, and hide your weapons in the saddle bags/boxes without attracting attention. You can also travel in small groups without attracting attention, as bikers try to do that in case of an emergency.

That said, you really should try to get pickups so you can transport heavy weapons and equipment.

Also, I suspect this is for his future Zulus Samoz. It isn't practical anymore when there are so many other better options.

[Krazeria]

noted

I suppose it was kind of a stupid idea

time to build some air bases

I yearn for the day when the interesting becomes the practical

*EDIT*

wouldn't an airbase built on ice be susceptible to things like napalm or, given that this is an alt earth and the need for a defensive force out on the ice comes from having long standing hostilities with the nation across the ice, some sort of specifically developed incendiary that would melt the ice? Also, I don't know much about the strength of sea ice, but wouldn't ground penetrating bombs and cruise missiles wreck a base built directly on the ice?

As I understand it, they're hitting your airfield, it would render it useless pretty much regardless of what they hit it with, depending on what kind of planes you're using.

I know most military airstrips are built of hardened concrete or some such thing and have the benefit of being built on hard packed dirt/gravel. My worry is that an air base built on the ice (given that the ice is extremely thick and doesn't move the air strip would most likely be made of concrete or the like) would get wrecked by any sort of weapon that could penetrate and detonate within the ice. I'm not sure how well ice fares compared to dirt and gravel, but I would imagine its not all that good

[The New Lowlands]

As I understand it, they're hitting your airfield, it would render it useless pretty much regardless of what they hit it with, depending on what kind of planes you're using.

I know most military airstrips are built of hardened concrete or some such thing and have the benefit of being built on hard packed dirt/gravel. My worry is that an air base built on the ice (given that the ice is extremely thick and doesn't move the air strip would most likely be made of concrete or the like) would get wrecked by any sort of weapon that could penetrate and detonate within the ice. I'm not sure how well ice fares compared to dirt and gravel, but I would imagine its not all that good

If you can built an airstrip on ice, I don't see how it would be fundamentally different to airstrips built on dirt or gravel; all of them will get screwed if you allow artillery or explosives of any kind to hit them, which is why it's generally a better idea just not to let them get hit.

[Anomalous Research and Containment-]

This argument is like clubbing baby orphan seals. No matter what you do, I'm going to turn you into a hat.

So basically it engages all targets which aren't marked friendly on NTDS, that's the opposite of how I would assume it would work but OK.

The operator can mass-select targets and change their category, not just one at a time. They can also designate zones in the sky that have different categories.

It will never be used except in areas where there are zero or nil chances for civilian casualties, which is nowhere. North Atlantic would certainly have civilian traffic, both European refugees and reinforcements from CONUS, so your statement that it would be "completely off limits" is false (and quite asinine tbh, why would major civilian traffic ways be off limits?).

Actually, it would be used when civilian casualties become acceptable losses. 200 dead civvies is a drop in the bucket compared to a sunk aircraft carrier.

Anyways, airliners are tagged as neutral contacts by the operators as they enter radar range. In time of war, they'd be marked as unknown until someone ID'd it. In this case, the carrier air group can do that easily enough before it comes anywhere near SAM range.

Commercial flights would be diverted down through Africa and across the South Atlantic or out through Asia to prevent any possibility of an accidental shoot-down once hostilities commenced. Airlines routinely divert flights around active conflict zones so they don't run the risk of loosing aircraft and passengers, and all NATO commercial airlines would have been madly airlifting people before the war started so they'd be free for Operation REFORGER.

Though I suppose in your revisionist history USS Vincennes never happened and Iran Air Flight 655 never flew during the Iran-Iraq War (not to mention the numerous other Tehran-Dubai flights between 1980 and 1988), but ok. We'll go with your almost delusional beliefs instead of historical facts. (:

Flight 655 was shot down in manual-operation mode due to operator error. The computer knew exactly what it was and categorized it as a low threat target. Half the radar techs thought it was an F-14 due to an unergonomic computer interface design problem. If the computer was acting autonomously, it would not have fired unless Flight 655 undertook some kind of action it interpreted as hostile, such as diving toward the ship or activating a targeting radar.

What did you just parrot all that from the Spark Notes' of Friedman's Guide to World Naval Weapons?

Modern Naval Combat by David Miller actually.

Bearing in mind I've never actually stated I know anything about Aegis, so your comment here is not only asinine but also totally irrelevant. I suppose it's not enough that I correct you on the "thousands" of target tracks and "hundreds" of missile guidance (bearing in mind that again, you're limited by illumination radars) you claimed earlier (quite adamantly, you even demanded that I source my common knowledge of Aegis "academically"), so yes I am clearly in the wrong for professing knowledge I do not possess.

I prostrate myself before you in deepest apology for having violated your domain of both orbital space debris radar tracking systems AND naval combat systems. Clearly such an academic heavyweight as yourself has little time for the ignorance of poor me, but I beseech you to find time in your busy day when you aren't furiously Google book searching every minor scrap of knowledge and repeating it in an attempt to save your own ass to forgive me for my transgression.

You claimed that an exact number is the absolute tracking limit, and I want to know where you got that number from. I suspect the inner reaches of your colon.

1) Ah good, so it isn't anything like this:

where the computer automatically assesses threats and engages missiles and everything squawking the wrong IFF automatically just like the CIWS

It's actually semi-automatic and controlled by the Fire Control Technician manning the weapon station. That's settled. Thank you for clearing that up.

2) Possibly true, but airliners would be used to shuttle reinforcements to Europe, not civilians, so maybe not. Neutral contacts wouldn't be engaged unless perhaps if were coming from the GIUK Gap (pure speculation, of course, there might be US troops arriving from Thule to London or across the GIUK Gap to Norway), which isn't (contrary to what you said) a no-fly zone over the entire North Atlantic. NY-London and other air routes would still be open (and used extremely heavily, for that matter) and kept quite busy shuttling US Marines and Army troops to POMCUS sites in West Germany, the Low Countries, and Norway.

3) Please provide an academic source showing that Libya and South Korea are the main POMCUS arteries REFORGER.

4) IAF 655 is also proof that airliners don't actually route over active combat zones. They rely on their broadcast of civilian IFF frequencies and steady flight profiles to protect them instead.

Please notice I never mentioned Aegis except questioning your (flawed) understanding of Aegis automatic engagement. It isn't actually automatic, it's semi-automatic. It requires the operator to select a series of targets which are then engaged by the computer, this is typical and expected of what I know from very brief readings about how Aegis works. You select targets or areas that will be designated hostile, and the computer engages all targets marked "hostile" on the NTDS.

It does not in your (redundant) words, "automatically assess threats and engages missiles and everything squawking the wrong IFF automatically", the operator (the man sitting at the control console who can sift through up to 128 targets) selects a series of targets and gives the computer permission to engage them based on set variables. Of course, it would never engage neutral IFF aircraft, that would be asinine, all it does is let the operator have hands-off on engaging confirmed or assumed hostile contacts.

This is true to what is published about Aegis, unlike your wild fantasies of an Aegis that can see "thousands" of targets and engage with "hundreds" of missiles, though.

5) I don't have that. It's a good series if it includes Bill Gunston's Modern Air Combat, but they're all extremely brief and not very in-depth. This probably explains a lot of your confusion. You should read something like Friedman's Naval Radar or perhaps Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships instead.

6) Please provide quote, because I never claimed an absolute tracking limit. You must be drunk, misreading, or potentially attempting to win the argument by doubling back and trying to find some semantic fault that you can needless prod and poke until everyone's patience is eaten up by your obstructionism and obtuseness. I suppose that would count as a victory, but let me provide quotes of everything I said about the tracking limit of Aegis, starting with the latest:

No, it's going to be 128, because that's the hard limit for the naval crew's information uptake.

SPY-1 can track 128 targets, which was the number chosen to avoid information overload (the hardware can track more, but it's not like the crew themselves can make use of it)

SPY-1 can track 128 targets.

You can see that there has been a steady progression in specificity. I've never actually said "Aegis can only track 128 targets and not a single one more", in fact I've even said that Aegis can possibly track more than one just by hardware, but the crew couldn't make use of it, therefore what can't be seen on the monitor can't be engaged. That's in the second quote, in the middle.

The crew is the bottleneck here, while I'm sure that the hardware can track more than 128 targets, this was chosen by the designers to avoid the problems associated with information overload in a high stress environment. You're not going to really ever need any more than that.

Hats are also immoral.

[Imperializt Russia]

Guys, for the love of shit. Fucking calm it, the pair of you.

Seriously, I'd love for the pair of you to continue the debate. It will only help others.

But not if you two can't lay off each other and get this thread A) locked again and B) permabanned by the site staff.

For the record, there's nothing stopping them from doing both - i.e., taking off their uniforms and biking to the next objective. Granted, they'll likely want to spread out, as a dozen or so people biking in a close group might attract suspicion.

Though the rural highlands of Afghanistan are just about one of the most dirt-poor places on earth, yet bands of Taliban have been known to traverse it on motorcycle. If you're in a sufficiently isolated place with a sufficiently low density of patrols, that might not necessarily be a terrible idea.

Motorcycles are a better option IMO because you can travel faster with less effort, and hide your weapons in the saddle bags/boxes without attracting attention. You can also travel in small groups without attracting attention, as bikers try to do that in case of an emergency.

That said, you really should try to get pickups so you can transport heavy weapons and equipment.

Also, I suspect this is for his future Zulus Samoz. It isn't practical anymore when there are so many other better options.

What? Bicycles are cheap as shit and weigh fuck-all. Hence why paratroopers were, for some operations, issued them almost individually in the Second World War. Hence why they were used by infantry in WWI, and IIRC WWII as well.

The post-apocalyptic Zulu lands are probably ripe bicycle territory.

[Zeinbrad]

I know most military airstrips are built of hardened concrete or some such thing and have the benefit of being built on hard packed dirt/gravel. My worry is that an air base built on the ice (given that the ice is extremely thick and doesn't move the air strip would most likely be made of concrete or the like) would get wrecked by any sort of weapon that could penetrate and detonate within the ice. I'm not sure how well ice fares compared to dirt and gravel, but I would imagine its not all that good

If you can built an airstrip on ice, I don't see how it would be fundamentally different to airstrips built on dirt or gravel; all of them will get screwed if you allow artillery or explosives of any kind to hit them, which is why it's generally a better idea just not to let them get hit.

*the following is a joke*

According to Ragon doctrine, if you are not using slaves to use their bodies to fill holes in the runway, you have done a poor job at managing your runway.

[Milograd]

If you can built an airstrip on ice, I don't see how it would be fundamentally different to airstrips built on dirt or gravel; all of them will get screwed if you allow artillery or explosives of any kind to hit them, which is why it's generally a better idea just not to let them get hit.

*the following is a joke*

According to Ragon doctrine, if you are not using slaves to use their bodies to fill holes in the runway, you have done a poor job at managing your runway.

Sounds pleasant.

[Anomalous Research and Containment-]

For the record, there's nothing stopping them from doing both - i.e., taking off their uniforms and biking to the next objective. Granted, they'll likely want to spread out, as a dozen or so people biking in a close group might attract suspicion.

Though the rural highlands of Afghanistan are just about one of the most dirt-poor places on earth, yet bands of Taliban have been known to traverse it on motorcycle. If you're in a sufficiently isolated place with a sufficiently low density of patrols, that might not necessarily be a terrible idea.

Motorcycles are a better option IMO because you can travel faster with less effort, and hide your weapons in the saddle bags/boxes without attracting attention. You can also travel in small groups without attracting attention, as bikers try to do that in case of an emergency.

That said, you really should try to get pickups so you can transport heavy weapons and equipment.

Also, I suspect this is for his future Zulus Samoz. It isn't practical anymore when there are so many other better options.

Of course we all know that bicycle infantry is a terrible idea. That's why they stopped using them back in 2001.

Motorcycles require fuel.

Bicycles require physical exertion.

A decent infantryman can cover 100 km a day without trouble when using a bicycle, more if he's on a paved road.

[Velkanika]

This argument is like clubbing baby orphan seals. No matter what you do, I'm going to turn you into a hat.

The operator can mass-select targets and change their category, not just one at a time. They can also designate zones in the sky that have different categories.


Actually, it would be used when civilian casualties become acceptable losses. 200 dead civvies is a drop in the bucket compared to a sunk aircraft carrier.

Anyways, airliners are tagged as neutral contacts by the operators as they enter radar range. In time of war, they'd be marked as unknown until someone ID'd it. In this case, the carrier air group can do that easily enough before it comes anywhere near SAM range.

Commercial flights would be diverted down through Africa and across the South Atlantic or out through Asia to prevent any possibility of an accidental shoot-down once hostilities commenced. Airlines routinely divert flights around active conflict zones so they don't run the risk of loosing aircraft and passengers, and all NATO commercial airlines would have been madly airlifting people before the war started so they'd be free for Operation REFORGER.

Flight 655 was shot down in manual-operation mode due to operator error. The computer knew exactly what it was and categorized it as a low threat target. Half the radar techs thought it was an F-14 due to an unergonomic computer interface design problem. If the computer was acting autonomously, it would not have fired unless Flight 655 undertook some kind of action it interpreted as hostile, such as diving toward the ship or activating a targeting radar.


Modern Naval Combat by David Miller actually.


You claimed that an exact number is the absolute tracking limit, and I want to know where you got that number from. I suspect the inner reaches of your colon.

1) Ah good, so it isn't anything like this:

where the computer automatically assesses threats and engages missiles and everything squawking the wrong IFF automatically just like the CIWS

It's actually semi-automatic and controlled by the Fire Control Technician manning the weapon station. That's settled. Thank you for clearing that up.

2) Possibly true, but airliners would be used to shuttle reinforcements to Europe, not civilians, so maybe not. Neutral contacts wouldn't be engaged unless perhaps if were coming from the GIUK Gap (pure speculation, of course, there might be US troops arriving from Thule to London or across the GIUK Gap to Norway), which isn't (contrary to what you said) a no-fly zone over the entire North Atlantic. NY-London and other air routes would still be open (and used extremely heavily, for that matter) and kept quite busy shuttling US Marines and Army troops to POMCUS sites in West Germany, the Low Countries, and Norway.

3) Please provide an academic source showing that Libya and South Korea are the main POMCUS arteries REFORGER.

4) IAF 655 is also proof that airliners don't actually route over active combat zones. They rely on their broadcast of civilian IFF frequencies and steady flight profiles to protect them instead.

Please notice I never mentioned Aegis except questioning your (flawed) understanding of Aegis automatic engagement. It isn't actually automatic, it's semi-automatic. It requires the operator to select a series of targets which are then engaged by the computer, this is typical and expected of what I know from very brief readings about how Aegis works. You select targets or areas that will be designated hostile, and the computer engages all targets marked "hostile" on the NTDS.

It does not in your (redundant) words, "automatically assess threats and engages missiles and everything squawking the wrong IFF automatically", the operator (the man sitting at the control console who can sift through up to 128 targets) selects a series of targets and gives the computer permission to engage them based on set variables. Of course, it would never engage neutral IFF aircraft, that would be asinine, all it does is let the operator have hands-off on engaging confirmed or assumed hostile contacts.

This is true to what is published about Aegis, unlike your wild fantasies of an Aegis that can see "thousands" of targets and engage with "hundreds" of missiles, though.

5) I don't have that. It's a good series if it includes Bill Gunston's Modern Air Combat, but they're all extremely brief and not very in-depth. This probably explains a lot of your confusion. You should read something like Friedman's Naval Radar or perhaps Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships instead.

6) Please provide quote, because I never claimed an absolute tracking limit. You must be drunk, misreading, or potentially attempting to win the argument by doubling back and trying to find some semantic fault that you can needless prod and poke until everyone's patience is eaten up by your obstructionism and obtuseness. I suppose that would count as a victory, but let me provide quotes of everything I said about the tracking limit of Aegis, starting with the latest:

No, it's going to be 128, because that's the hard limit for the naval crew's information uptake.

SPY-1 can track 128 targets, which was the number chosen to avoid information overload (the hardware can track more, but it's not like the crew themselves can make use of it)

SPY-1 can track 128 targets.

You can see that there has been a steady progression in specificity. I've never actually said "Aegis can only track 128 targets and not a single one more", in fact I've even said that Aegis can possibly track more than one just by hardware, but the crew couldn't make use of it, therefore what can't be seen on the monitor can't be engaged. That's in the second quote, in the middle.

The crew is the bottleneck here, while I'm sure that the hardware can track more than 128 targets, this was chosen by the designers to avoid the problems associated with information overload in a high stress environment. You're not going to really ever need any more than that.

Hats are also immoral.

I love how you just altered the statements you've made to conform to the arguments I made in order to save face. You obviously haven't actually read any of the books (which I own as well) you've listed or you'd have spotted the problems with my argument, namely my description of how the operator designates targets. I suggest you actually read those books, or maybe pick up the 2001 edition of Modern Naval Combat.

Oh, and before you ask me to back that up for you...

Google it, I'm not here to enable your ignorance of the most basic things about which you profess knowledge.

[Imperializt Russia]

The fuck did I just ask of the pair of you?