NS Military Realism Mk. 7: NO

[Arkinaid]

He dared when no one else would in the early phases of the war. Sometimes that's all it takes. Hell, that's all it took to make Robert E. Lee an enduring "legendary" commander despite being overall fairly average in skill. At the end of the day, it wasn't Rommel or Guderian who ordered the remilitarization of the Rhineland or the invasion of the Sudetenland. And it takes more than an "utter buffoon" to start the most destructive war in human history.

Ordering militarization and ordering your army to attack does not make you a great military leader, it makes you a warlike leader who has expended all your other options. No, that is the worst part of that war, All it takes is one guy making bad decisions to send the entire world in the most destructive war in history.

There is a saying, evil men are not that terrifying they come about every century or so and are beaten back, stupid men are the real terror because they appear every day and threaten everyone. Hitler just had to luck to be both evil and stupid, he ran his economy of captured treasuries, divided his military into competing arms and he encouraged battles like Stalingrad just because he liked battles with high casualty numbers.

He was a terrible leader and a terrible general who happen to be extremely lucky and in the right spot at the right moment. Nothing he does lends itself to declaring him a military genius or the like. At best you could call him a good politician and a excellent public speaker.

[Shuggy555]

On the topic of the smallest guided weaponry, i give you a guided sniper round...

http://www.gizmag.com/darpa-sniper-bull ... ath/32952/

[Velkanika]

He dared when no one else would in the early phases of the war. Sometimes that's all it takes. Hell, that's all it took to make Robert E. Lee an enduring "legendary" commander despite being overall fairly average in skill. At the end of the day, it wasn't Rommel or Guderian who ordered the remilitarization of the Rhineland or the invasion of the Sudetenland. And it takes more than an "utter buffoon" to start the most destructive war in human history.

Ordering militarization and ordering your army to attack does not make you a great military leader, it makes you a warlike leader who has expended all your other options. No, that is the worst part of that war, All it takes is one guy making bad decisions to send the entire world in the most destructive war in history.

There is a saying, evil men are not that terrifying they come about every century or so and are beaten back, stupid men are the real terror because they appear every day and threaten everyone. Hitler just had to luck to be both evil and stupid, he ran his economy of captured treasuries, divided his military into competing arms and he encouraged battles like Stalingrad just because he liked battles with high casualty numbers.

He was a terrible leader and a terrible general who happen to be extremely lucky and in the right spot at the right moment. Nothing he does lends itself to declaring him a military genius or the like. At best you could call him a good politician and a excellent public speaker.

You don't even know a pittance the man you allegedly despise so much. Hitler was an average European head of state for his period. He did not intend to start a war with France or the UK, he intended to regain control of the territory Germans historically considered to be theirs since before Bismark began to unify the Germanic states; places where German speaking people lived. As a side effect of this, he repeatedly alienated the British and French before finally miscalculating rather drastically when he invaded Poland.

Hitler did not enjoy high-casualty battles, and was not a psychopath. The historical record is clear on the fact that Adolf Hitler was a pretty normal guy who happened to be an asshole racist. That said, he wasn't very far off from how racist the average European was in that time period. Stalingrad occurred not because he wanted a bloody battle but because it was named STALINgrad. Hitler wanted to take the city for propaganda purposes initially, but it quickly turned into a matter of personal pride for him to prevent Stalin from stopping him in that city. He started listening to his General Staff again after that one went horrifyingly bad for him.

Hitler was not a military genius, and I didn't see anyone refer to him as such. He was a public speaking master and excellent politician who dared upset the balance of power in an attempt to seize what he saw as the manifest destiny of the German people. He was also a mass-murdering monster who slaughtered a few million innocents for reasons I find as abhorrent as the act itself.

[The Akasha Colony]

Ordering militarization and ordering your army to attack does not make you a great military leader, it makes you a warlike leader who has expended all your other options. No, that is the worst part of that war, All it takes is one guy making bad decisions to send the entire world in the most destructive war in history.

There is a saying, evil men are not that terrifying they come about every century or so and are beaten back, stupid men are the real terror because they appear every day and threaten everyone. Hitler just had to luck to be both evil and stupid, he ran his economy of captured treasuries, divided his military into competing arms and he encouraged battles like Stalingrad just because he liked battles with high casualty numbers.

He was a terrible leader and a terrible general who happen to be extremely lucky and in the right spot at the right moment. Nothing he does lends itself to declaring him a military genius or the like. At best you could call him a good politician and a excellent public speaker.

It is rather dangerous and disingenuous to label anyone as "evil." No one is born "evil," as morality is a human construct. There is no genetic trait for "evil" that can be passed down and inherited. And indeed, the people who we commonly call "evil" would rarely think of themselves that way. Hitler honestly and earnestly believed he was doing the best thing for the German people, and was doing humanity a favor with his purges.

He was not raised in some secluded secret cult to be the most evil man to have lived, he was raised in the open society of the 20th century. He lived and worked among the people of Austria and Germany, and served alongside the average German soldiers fighting in France. Nor was he alone in his beliefs, as after all he was hardly the first person to advocate ethnic cleansing against the Jews and Roma nor was he the first person to want to reclaim what he perceived as his nation's birthright by force. Had he been the only one with his beliefs, he wouldn't have been elected to office.

Don't underestimate the importance luck, good timing, and boldness, either. Often, the only thing separating a brilliant decision from a terrible one is luck and fortuitous timing. But you'll never find out unless you try.

[Doppio Giudici]

Ordering militarization and ordering your army to attack does not make you a great military leader, it makes you a warlike leader who has expended all your other options. No, that is the worst part of that war, All it takes is one guy making bad decisions to send the entire world in the most destructive war in history.

There is a saying, evil men are not that terrifying they come about every century or so and are beaten back, stupid men are the real terror because they appear every day and threaten everyone. Hitler just had to luck to be both evil and stupid, he ran his economy of captured treasuries, divided his military into competing arms and he encouraged battles like Stalingrad just because he liked battles with high casualty numbers.

He was a terrible leader and a terrible general who happen to be extremely lucky and in the right spot at the right moment. Nothing he does lends itself to declaring him a military genius or the like. At best you could call him a good politician and a excellent public speaker.

It is rather dangerous and disingenuous to label anyone as "evil." No one is born "evil," as morality is a human construct. There is no genetic trait for "evil" that can be passed down and inherited. And indeed, the people who we commonly call "evil" would rarely think of themselves that way. Hitler honestly and earnestly believed he was doing the best thing for the German people, and was doing humanity a favor with his purges.

He was not raised in some secluded secret cult to be the most evil man to have lived, he was raised in the open society of the 20th century. He lived and worked among the people of Austria and Germany, and served alongside the average German soldiers fighting in France. Nor was he alone in his beliefs, as after all he was hardly the first person to advocate ethnic cleansing against the Jews and Roma nor was he the first person to want to reclaim what he perceived as his nation's birthright by force. Had he been the only one with his beliefs, he wouldn't have been elected to office.

Don't underestimate the importance luck, good timing, and boldness, either. Often, the only thing separating a brilliant decision from a terrible one is luck and fortuitous timing. But you'll never find out unless you try.

Hilter also preached about a master race he was not part of and thought himself God more or less.

Can we get back on topic now?

Speaking of on topic, is the King Cobra a bad heli?

[Velkanika]

It is rather dangerous and disingenuous to label anyone as "evil." No one is born "evil," as morality is a human construct. There is no genetic trait for "evil" that can be passed down and inherited. And indeed, the people who we commonly call "evil" would rarely think of themselves that way. Hitler honestly and earnestly believed he was doing the best thing for the German people, and was doing humanity a favor with his purges.

He was not raised in some secluded secret cult to be the most evil man to have lived, he was raised in the open society of the 20th century. He lived and worked among the people of Austria and Germany, and served alongside the average German soldiers fighting in France. Nor was he alone in his beliefs, as after all he was hardly the first person to advocate ethnic cleansing against the Jews and Roma nor was he the first person to want to reclaim what he perceived as his nation's birthright by force. Had he been the only one with his beliefs, he wouldn't have been elected to office.

Don't underestimate the importance luck, good timing, and boldness, either. Often, the only thing separating a brilliant decision from a terrible one is luck and fortuitous timing. But you'll never find out unless you try.

Hilter also preached about a master race he was not part of and thought himself God more or less.

Can we get back on topic now?

Speaking of on topic, is the King Cobra a bad heli?

It's a very good attack helicopter actually.

[Questers]

Ordering militarization and ordering your army to attack does not make you a great military leader, it makes you a warlike leader who has expended all your other options. No, that is the worst part of that war, All it takes is one guy making bad decisions to send the entire world in the most destructive war in history.

There is a saying, evil men are not that terrifying they come about every century or so and are beaten back, stupid men are the real terror because they appear every day and threaten everyone. Hitler just had to luck to be both evil and stupid, he ran his economy of captured treasuries, divided his military into competing arms and he encouraged battles like Stalingrad just because he liked battles with high casualty numbers.

He was a terrible leader and a terrible general who happen to be extremely lucky and in the right spot at the right moment. Nothing he does lends itself to declaring him a military genius or the like. At best you could call him a good politician and a excellent public speaker.

You don't even know a pittance the man you allegedly despise so much. Hitler was an average European head of state for his period. He did not intend to start a war with France or the UK, he intended to regain control of the territory Germans historically considered to be theirs since before Bismark began to unify the Germanic states; places where German speaking people lived. As a side effect of this, he repeatedly alienated the British and French before finally miscalculating rather drastically when he invaded Poland.

Hitler did not enjoy high-casualty battles, and was not a psychopath. The historical record is clear on the fact that Adolf Hitler was a pretty normal guy who happened to be an asshole racist. That said, he wasn't very far off from how racist the average European was in that time period. Stalingrad occurred not because he wanted a bloody battle but because it was named STALINgrad. Hitler wanted to take the city for propaganda purposes initially, but it quickly turned into a matter of personal pride for him to prevent Stalin from stopping him in that city. He started listening to his General Staff again after that one went horrifyingly bad for him.

Hitler was not a military genius, and I didn't see anyone refer to him as such. He was a public speaking master and excellent politician who dared upset the balance of power in an attempt to seize what he saw as the manifest destiny of the German people. He was also a mass-murdering monster who slaughtered a few million innocents for reasons I find as abhorrent as the act itself.

There is quite a strong argument that Hitler had a form of psychosis, possibly induced by the combination of the drugs he was receiving. Obviously "he was evil" isn't the most nuanced approach, but I don't think painting him as an ordinary guy is about right - he was much less "normal" than Churchill or FDR, and I think a misanthrope - paranoid, psychotic, and highly narcissistic.

Now the real born to be asshole of world history is Stalin, but that's another topic.

[Spirit of Hope]

To get us back on topic, I posted this and it was forgotten at the bottom of the page. Debate me, tell me how wrong I am! Talking about defending against an amphibious invasion is always fun.

D-Day basically proved this approach wrong. The enemy will not attempt an amphibious landing without local air superiority. If they do not secure it, they will almost certainly not even attempt the landing. Once they have air superiority, moving heavy forces quickly toward the beach head becomes extremely difficult. The Germans at D-Day had an extremely hard time mustering their inland forces for a quick offensive against the Allies, giving them precious time to dig in. Rommel actually predicted this, based on his experiences with air power in Africa, but von Rundstedt disagreed and Hitler vacillated. The goal is to prevent them from securing that foothold in the first place.

Accept their is no way you can prevent the landing. To much coast is open to attack, your opponents will have overwhelming air, land and sea power at the point of the landing, they will have the ability to plan based on your positions while you will have to guess at where they might land and if they have control of the sea enough to land an amphibious force you probably can not threaten them in turn.

Yes I think you should never let your opponent get to the point where they can threaten an amphibious invasion. But that is not something you can necessarily control. Their will be times where the enemy can land forces and you have to come up with the best way to respond.

And I should clarify, I don't think you should be responding with lighting forces to hit them on the beach, or near the beach. Instead I fell the light forces near the beach should be delaying and harassing the invading force while the heavy forces set up to check the invading forces advance. Hopefully your heavy forces can do this from an area where the enemy won't have air superiority, or at the very least you will be able to reduce the efficiency of that air superiority. Only once you have firmly stopped the enemy advance do you start trying to fight them back.

As a side note the French rail network wasn't that devastated. From everything I've read the Germans had it almost completely repaid and working within a couple of days. The allied bombing and sabotage campaign was largely ineffective to reduce the speed of the german movements. The much bigger issue was once the germans started moving the fact that their every move was harassed by allied air power.

[Roski]

Hey, so on my same topic, if the person has 74 million soldiers, is it ok to conscript to eight percent of my population (over a hundred million, don't recall how much), for temporary defencive reasons, with limited deployment?

[Roski]

So mine and Trade Federation's Best bet against Paddy is nuclear warfare?

[Questers]

74 million. lawl

[Roski]

74 million. lawl

IM SCARED QUESTERS PLS HALP

[The Akasha Colony]

Accept their is no way you can prevent the landing. To much coast is open to attack, your opponents will have overwhelming air, land and sea power at the point of the landing, they will have the ability to plan based on your positions while you will have to guess at where they might land and if they have control of the sea enough to land an amphibious force you probably can not threaten them in turn.

It's actually not all that hard to guess where they will land. There are a number of factors necessary for a successful landing, and these generally aren't present in too many places. They need a place without underwater and above water obstructions, so it has to be a beach (no cliffs or other stretches of coast with inclement terrain). It will almost certainly be far from a major city, since these tend to have garrisons and are messy places to fight. It will be far from any active standalone garrison bases, since landing right where the enemy's camped isn't a very good idea. The stretch of beach must be long enough to support the landing, and cannot have any obstructions to the rear that would make it difficult for vehicles or hovercraft to move inland. It must have space for maneuver inland, and most likely space to land troops via helicopter in support of the landings.

This leaves aside any weather conditions that may make a particular location unsuitable, as well as the fact that the landings must be in a strategically useful location. You can also easily shut down a number of possible landing locations with a few well-placed minefields, leaving only a few left (hell, you could shut those down with mines as well).

This significantly narrows the possible locations for a serious landing. On top of this, the attacker must commit before the defender, as they need more time to develop a plan. On top of this, even a modicum of preparation on the part of the defenders requires the attacker to commit a disproportionate amount of planning and resources to solve. A handful of men with ATGMs and MANPADs require far more to "comfortably" deal with from the perspective of the invaders.

Yes I think you should never let your opponent get to the point where they can threaten an amphibious invasion. But that is not something you can necessarily control. Their will be times where the enemy can land forces and you have to come up with the best way to respond.

And for those times, you've probably lost. If the enemy ends up with a foothold and they presumably have enough manpower to put ashore after that to mount a campaign with a serious chance of defeating you, then it's pretty much curtains. It's already basically that if you can't defend your coastline anyway.

And I should clarify, I don't think you should be responding with lighting forces to hit them on the beach, or near the beach. Instead I fell the light forces near the beach should be delaying and harassing the invading force while the heavy forces set up to check the invading forces advance. Hopefully your heavy forces can do this from an area where the enemy won't have air superiority, or at the very least you will be able to reduce the efficiency of that air superiority. Only once you have firmly stopped the enemy advance do you start trying to fight them back.

That only works if you have a such a surplus of strength that you can simply defeat the enemy in the open field, and if the enemy doesn't just obliterate your light forces with their "overwhelming air, land and sea power." Landing is when the invader is most vulnerable. Landing craft and helicopters are very vulnerable to even infantry weapons. A main battle tank that could normally shrug off ATGMs will sink just the same when you hit its unarmored landing craft. But once you let them disembark their tanks and infantry, they become much harder to deal with.

That aside, there is no easy way to gather your forces for a counterattack. To be free of the enemy's "overwhelming" air support, you would have to be quite far inland (likely over 100 km), especially since nowadays he'll be lobbing cruise missiles or other munitions. This also presumes your enemy somehow missed your giant concentration of troops or decided to land anyway. You could station them closer but then you'd need to be able to contest his air superiority, and if you can do that, use it to stop the landing already.

As a side note the French rail network wasn't that devastated. From everything I've read the Germans had it almost completely repaid and working within a couple of days. The allied bombing and sabotage campaign was largely ineffective to reduce the speed of the german movements. The much bigger issue was once the germans started moving the fact that their every move was harassed by allied air power.

The Allies destroyed every road and rail bridge over the River Seine between Paris and the Atlantic coast. Rail transport efficiency in France was down 60%. Tracks are easy to repair, but tunnels and bridges are not. They were so important that the first actions on D-Day were to capture the few remaining causeways and bridges controlling access inland that they hadn't intentionally destroyed. The German inability to repair the roads was such that after capture the Allies had to do it themselves in order to keep advancing. Forced road marches in the absence of available rail transport took a toll on the German motor pool. Even a single day's delay was too costly to the Germans, as the Allies put over 150,000 men ashore on the first day alone, and nearly a million by the end of the month.

At the beach is the most efficient time to engage the invaders. They will be forced to rely on only air and naval support, since the entire point is to land the ground contingent. But once you let them land, now you have to deal with their air, naval and land assets.

[Spirit of Hope]

THe problem with that is that it demands taking the enemy on the beach. When as noted they will be able to overwhelm you. Even if their are three places where they might land, you have to split your strength between them, while they can use their entire force against one point. Making this worse is the fact that hovercraft mean that a much larger selection of beaches are a possible landing point.

D-Day was a success, and the Germans put a significant amount of effort into trying to stop any landing on the beaches. The equation has only gotten more in favor of the landing force, who are now able to deploy more forces, faster, under better protection, and with more support than the Allied forces.

The landing force might be its most vulnerable at the beach, but that requires that you have enough strength their to be able to exploit this. Given the ability of the lander to choose to avoid enemy strongholds it is unlikely they will land where you will have a significant enough force to fight the landing. You are going to need a lot more than a couple of guys with ATGMs to take on a large scale invasion.

[Roski]

THe problem with that is that it demands taking the enemy on the beach. When as noted they will be able to overwhelm you. Even if their are three places where they might land, you have to split your strength between them, while they can use their entire force against one point. Making this worse is the fact that hovercraft mean that a much larger selection of beaches are a possible landing point.

D-Day was a success, and the Germans put a significant amount of effort into trying to stop any landing on the beaches. The equation has only gotten more in favor of the landing force, who are now able to deploy more forces, faster, under better protection, and with more support than the Allied forces.

The landing force might be its most vulnerable at the beach, but that requires that you have enough strength their to be able to exploit this. Given the ability of the lander to choose to avoid enemy strongholds it is unlikely they will land where you will have a significant enough force to fight the landing. You are going to need a lot more than a couple of guys with ATGMs to take on a large scale invasion.

Going to have to stop you right there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_ ... e_reserves

Germany, once again, was a fucking idiot, and lost a valuable opportunity during the D-Day attack, when all of these tank battalions could have retaken Normandy quite quickly, actually.

You know, I thank Hitler for being absolutely fucking stupid.

[Spirit of Hope]

THe problem with that is that it demands taking the enemy on the beach. When as noted they will be able to overwhelm you. Even if their are three places where they might land, you have to split your strength between them, while they can use their entire force against one point. Making this worse is the fact that hovercraft mean that a much larger selection of beaches are a possible landing point.

D-Day was a success, and the Germans put a significant amount of effort into trying to stop any landing on the beaches. The equation has only gotten more in favor of the landing force, who are now able to deploy more forces, faster, under better protection, and with more support than the Allied forces.

The landing force might be its most vulnerable at the beach, but that requires that you have enough strength their to be able to exploit this. Given the ability of the lander to choose to avoid enemy strongholds it is unlikely they will land where you will have a significant enough force to fight the landing. You are going to need a lot more than a couple of guys with ATGMs to take on a large scale invasion.

Going to have to stop you right there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_ ... e_reserves

Germany, once again, was a fucking idiot, and lost a valuable opportunity during the D-Day attack, when all of these tank battalions could have retaken Normandy quite quickly, actually.

You know, I thank Hitler for being absolutely fucking stupid.

You seam to have missed the point. I didn't say germany put all of its efforts into holding the beach, just that "Germans put a significant amount of effort into trying to stop any landing on the beaches." Now I don't know about you but the Atlantic Wall is something I would consider a "significant" effort. Coasting something like 3.7 billion Deutschmarks for France (equivalent to ~24 Billion USD today).

[Arkinaid]

How do the majority of anti tank missiles home in on their target?

[Spirit of Hope]

How do the majority of anti tank missiles home in on their target?

Depends on the missile.

There are wire guided, IR and laser beam riding that I know of. There might be some radar guided but I'm not sure.

EDIT: Yep found some that use radar.

[Mitheldalond]

THe problem with that is that it demands taking the enemy on the beach. When as noted they will be able to overwhelm you. Even if their are three places where they might land, you have to split your strength between them, while they can use their entire force against one point. Making this worse is the fact that hovercraft mean that a much larger selection of beaches are a possible landing point.

D-Day was a success, and the Germans put a significant amount of effort into trying to stop any landing on the beaches. The equation has only gotten more in favor of the landing force, who are now able to deploy more forces, faster, under better protection, and with more support than the Allied forces.

The landing force might be its most vulnerable at the beach, but that requires that you have enough strength their to be able to exploit this. Given the ability of the lander to choose to avoid enemy strongholds it is unlikely they will land where you will have a significant enough force to fight the landing. You are going to need a lot more than a couple of guys with ATGMs to take on a large scale invasion.

Going to have to stop you right there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_ ... e_reserves
Germany, once again, was a fucking idiot, and lost a valuable opportunity during the D-Day attack, when all of these tank battalions could have retaken Normandy quite quickly, actually.

You know, I thank Hitler for being absolutely fucking stupid.

Bullcrap. Complete and utter bullcrap. Neither Hitler nor the Germans were idiots. You don't take over most of Europe by being idiots.

Germany wasn't prepared for the Normandy invasion because the Allies pulled off one of the greatest deceptions of all time. Saying it was because the Germans were idiots is extremely insulting to all the Allied intelligence agents and special forces who had the Germans convinced that Normandy was a distraction from the real invasion.

[Arkinaid]

How do the majority of anti tank missiles home in on their target?

Depends on the missile.

There are wire guided, IR and laser beam riding that I know of. There might be some radar guided but I'm not sure.

I have always thought wire guided missiles were kind of pointless, why guide them with a wire when there are better ways to do it that are not tethered to the launcher.

So laser and IR, which is basically heat.

http://www.funker530.com/pl-01-future-s ... by-poland/

So this tank apparently does not give off any thermal images for IR to track, if I am understanding that right.

That leaves dumb rockets and laser guided, what is something else you can track on a tank so that a missile will hit it?

[Mitheldalond]

Depends on the missile.

There are wire guided, IR and laser beam riding that I know of. There might be some radar guided but I'm not sure.

I have always thought wire guided missiles were kind of pointless, why guide them with a wire when there are better ways to do it that are not tethered to the launcher.

So laser and IR, which is basically heat.

http://www.funker530.com/pl-01-future-s ... by-poland/

So this tank apparently does not give off any thermal images for IR to track, if I am understanding that right.

That leaves dumb rockets and laser guided, what is something else you can track on a tank so that a missile will hit it?

Because there weren't better ways to guide them at the time.

Any tank will give off heat, unless it is completely shut down and has been for awhile. There are ways to reduce your heat signature, but not to eliminate it completely.

Millimeter wave radar and imaging infrared come to mind.

[Spirit of Hope]

Depends on the missile.

There are wire guided, IR and laser beam riding that I know of. There might be some radar guided but I'm not sure.

I have always thought wire guided missiles were kind of pointless, why guide them with a wire when there are better ways to do it that are not tethered to the launcher.

So laser and IR, which is basically heat.

http://www.funker530.com/pl-01-future-s ... by-poland/

So this tank apparently does not give off any thermal images for IR to track, if I am understanding that right.

That leaves dumb rockets and laser guided, what is something else you can track on a tank so that a missile will hit it?

Wire guided can't be jammed, and is controlled by a human, which means that IR and radar tricks are less efficient.

And that tank has to give off heat of some sort, but it probably uses a verity of tricks to try and reduce the signature it is giving off, and the direction in which it is giving that signal off.

And you forgot radar guided munitions.

[Yukonastan]

I have always thought wire guided missiles were kind of pointless, why guide them with a wire when there are better ways to do it that are not tethered to the launcher.

So laser and IR, which is basically heat.

http://www.funker530.com/pl-01-future-s ... by-poland/

So this tank apparently does not give off any thermal images for IR to track, if I am understanding that right.

That leaves dumb rockets and laser guided, what is something else you can track on a tank so that a missile will hit it?

Wire guided can't be jammed, and is controlled by a human, which means that IR and radar tricks are less efficient.

And that tank has to give off heat of some sort, but it probably uses a verity of tricks to try and reduce the signature it is giving off, and the direction in which it is giving that signal off.

And you forgot radar guided munitions.

Wrong. Wireguided is jammable, since the sight requires a flare on the back of the rocket. By shooting off a similar flare from the tank (flare packs for tanks lolwot), the missile CAN be redirected into the dirt.

As for the Polish tank, that uses those BAe thermal tiles. Basically a thermal LCD screen.

[Velkanika]

Wire guided can't be jammed, and is controlled by a human, which means that IR and radar tricks are less efficient.

And that tank has to give off heat of some sort, but it probably uses a verity of tricks to try and reduce the signature it is giving off, and the direction in which it is giving that signal off.

And you forgot radar guided munitions.

Wrong. Wireguided is jammable, since the sight requires a flare on the back of the rocket. By shooting off a similar flare from the tank (flare packs for tanks lolwot), the missile CAN be redirected into the dirt.

As for the Polish tank, that uses those BAe thermal tiles. Basically a thermal LCD screen.

Which missile are you talking about here? There are a variety of ways to guide a SACLOS wire-guided ATGM, and I'm pretty sure no two missiles are exactly alike in that regard.

[Korouse]

(Impersonators proof of being in the military)

Is this a bunk you would see in a Carrier?
Is there even internet connection on a Carrier?
Nuclear powered Internet Connection possible on Carrier?