The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental,

* Be polite and civil,

* Use capitalization,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Please minimize editorializing, please make your opinions clearly distinct from the content of the article or source, please do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles,

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis nor swear,

* Use foul imagery,

* Use acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters,

* Make it personal,

* Try to out someone,

* Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section, or try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

​

Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules.

Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.

In the contemporary era it would seem that what makes a good "fighter" is a platform that can see airborne targets at very long range, quickly fly towards them, shoot long range missiles at them, and ideally do all of this without being detected or engaged in return. Quite probably this may include controlling friendly drones and utilizing their weapons and sensors to engage the enemy instead of organic weapons systems. One can still easily imagine dogfights and guns in this environment but primarily between small friendly and enemy drones that engage in close.

This then implies a much larger aircraft than a traditional manned fighter with much larger fuel tanks, a 2nd seat for a dedicated drone and sensors operator, aerodynamically compromising all aspect stealth, powerful sensor arrays and the cooling required, and for good measure maybe some next Gen survivability capabilities like electronic warfare emitters to disable drones/missiles or a laser.

If it is not fully committed to being a drone mothership, then presumably it would want missiles. A lot of missiles. A lot of really big missiles. In a bay. A really big internal weapons bay.

This screams more F15EX with a UFO form factor to me and less F35/F22. Maneuverability would be desired to enable missile evasion but the primary survivability is to not be detected and the secondary is to not be targeted. Which brings me to my question: whats the overlap between this thing and a strike platform?

When imagining a next generation strike platform, a few different concepts come to mind

1. A highly stealthy missile truck that can carry even bigger missiles. It would still need large fuel tanks, even better stealth and survivability characteristics as it's getting in closer, and then there's a question of sensors. Does it need it's own detection and targeting sensors or does it rely on a something like the NGAD I just described?

2. Swarms of stealthyish cheap drones carrying short to medium range air to ground missiles relying on the smart plane for targeting. Or bombs.

3. A small highly stealthy strike aircraft designed for deep penetration. It would need to be small, fast, need detection and targeting sensors to accomplish precision strikes and evade hostiles but not control the battlespace. Given the specialized mission it could probably sacrifice fuel and rely on enablers. The capability to control a small amount of tiny escort drones would probably be a nice to have.

4. A B52 or C130 that drops AGMs out the back by the pallet

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental,

* Be polite and civil,

* Use capitalization,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Please minimize editorializing, please make your opinions clearly distinct from the content of the article or source, please do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles,

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis nor swear,

* Use foul imagery,

* Use acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters,

* Make it personal,

* Try to out someone,

* Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section, or try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

​

Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules.

Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental,

* Be polite and civil,

* Use capitalization,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Please minimize editorializing, please make your opinions clearly distinct from the content of the article or source, please do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles,

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis nor swear,

* Use foul imagery,

* Use acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters,

* Make it personal,

* Try to out someone,

* Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section, or try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

​

Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules.

Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.

Armenia's strategic situation seems to be extremely desperate. Their low population severely limits the potential for them to build a strong economy to supply their military. Additionally their small population makes them unable to have an addicutly sized subscription military.

Even if they had billions of spare dollars laying around, where would they spend it? Their main supplier Russia, won't be able to send them what they need due to them being at war. Many western countries won't supply them due to their close relationship with russia, and not wanting to annoy turkey. And India is very limited in the types of equipment they could supply them due to their domestic defence industry being relatively small.

Perhaps China? But even they are starting to get closer economic ties to Turkey, and might not be willing to sacrifice that even for large defence contracts through armenia.

Other smaller nations known for selling defence equipment would probably not sell to them either. Israel has close ties to Azerbaijan. South Africa and Korea have close ties to Turkey.

Ironically Sweden, France, and Finland may be willing to sell them equipment

Additionally, they lack the ability to use defence in depth because of their small territory. And being landlocked and Surrounded they are vulnerable to being cutoff from resupply.

Heck, lets say they are given a grant of $200 billion to fix their defence situation. What would they even be able to do with it that would really change anything for them?

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental,

* Be polite and civil,

* Use capitalization,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Please minimize editorializing, please make your opinions clearly distinct from the content of the article or source, please do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles,

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis nor swear,

* Use foul imagery,

* Use acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters,

* Make it personal,

* Try to out someone,

* Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section, or try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

​

Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules.

Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.

I've just recently watched a video released by the Ukranian 45th brigade which showed ZSU forces effectively defeating the enemy largely through the use of indirect fire and drone attack. However I struggled to come up with something that the Russians had done wrong on the tactical level or could have done which would've helped them achieve success.
I'm curious if there's something that the Russians or Ukranians can do in scenarios similar to this at the brigade level, barring training their troops better, shooting more artillery and shovelling more MBT's into the grinder.
I know that the ZSU has succeeded in breaking through RGF lines before, but those successes seem to be built on exploiting Russian failures at the Operational level, which resulted in the undermanning and overstretching of Russian defensive lines, which cannot be replicated in current battlefield conditions. Is tactical success in such an environment even possible without having a bunch of 5th or 4th gen aircraft to conduct SEAD and then bomb the enemy till they stop resisting like in Desert Storm or waiting till the enemy cracks from attrition? Would a NATO - esque military stuck in a similar scenario fare better, purely because it lacks the Soviet foundation upon which both sides have built their militaries?

Video in question is split into two parts -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24WMSiMMlUE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iz0mt3umMpw&t=639s

TLDR - What can either side do to win at the brigade level and create an exploitable breakthrough? Would a NATO - esque military do better or are both sides screwed without having a bunch of 5th gens to do SEAD with?

I will be in the Amazon region and will have the opportunity to search briefly for a 16th century Spanish conquistador earthwork fortification site, or at least see where generally it would have been built (rain and current have likely changed the landscape significantly in 400 years.

The island on which it was built is Isla Pucallpa (3.47511° S, 72.90693° W). Thirty Spaniards built an earthwork fortification on the island to protect against the natives, who came from land and by sea. They also would’ve wanted to position themselves where they could hail a passing ship, which they knew to be coming.

My question is, where would be the place to build such a fortification? I assume the easternmost cape.

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental,

* Be polite and civil,

* Use capitalization,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Please minimize editorializing, please make your opinions clearly distinct from the content of the article or source, please do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles,

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis nor swear,

* Use foul imagery,

* Use acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters,

* Make it personal,

* Try to out someone,

* Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section, or try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

​

Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules.

Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.

Genuinely what is their purpose? What can a tank do that an infantryman can’t today?

Also, since the start of the war in ukraine we’ve seen plenty of russian and ukrainian tanks get destroyed by drones, and when somebody asks why this happens the response generally boils down to “they’re not using them correctly”, which is confusing, as, if one of the strongest militaries in the world can’t properly utilize them, then what other nations can?

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental,

* Be polite and civil,

* Use capitalization,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Please minimize editorializing, please make your opinions clearly distinct from the content of the article or source, please do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles,

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis nor swear,

* Use foul imagery,

* Use acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters,

* Make it personal,

* Try to out someone,

* Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section, or try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

​

Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules.

Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.

As we all know the Ukrainian summer offensive of 2023 failed dramatically in a strategic and tactical sense, zero of the set goals of the operation were achieved and the offensive got bogged down after breaching the first line of defense.
This is namely because Surovikin line employed a defense in depth, with three defensive lines set up with kill-zones, pre-sighted artillery, minefields and tank obstacles in between them, all while every move made was being observed by recon drones.
Even if the Ukrainian military had air support, I doubt they would have been able to breach through all 3 defensive lines, meaning that there is a high likely hood that even modern Western militaries utilizing combined arms warfare would struggle to breach such a defensive line (outside of going around it which isn't always an option.)

So my question is: How would a modern military go about defeating a defense in depth such as the Surovikin line?

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental,

* Be polite and civil,

* Use capitalization,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Please minimize editorializing, please make your opinions clearly distinct from the content of the article or source, please do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles,

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis nor swear,

* Use foul imagery,

* Use acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters,

* Make it personal,

* Try to out someone,

* Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section, or try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

​

Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules.

Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.

A new issue of Strategika, a journal of the Hoover Institution Military History Working Group, examines the issue of military recruitment in the United States.

In "A Cultural Decline in Defending America," the background essay for the new issue, Marine Corps major and former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations Owen West and coauthor Kevin Wallsten, professor of political science at Cal State Long Beach, chart the rise and fall in young Americans' interest in military service over time. They argue that "institutional confidence is ephemeral, tied to politics and performance," and that to restore confidence today, "the uniformed military—the generals and admirals as the leaders—must reconcile the military meritocracy with efforts that broaden the pool and retain top talent, as Colin Powell did in the 1990s." West and Wallsten also stress how "the military must get serious about heeding its core constituency: the veterans whose endorsements are key to sourcing 80% of its volunteers."

In "Saving Private Ryan," retired Army colonel and former Siena College president Chris Gibson argues that to remedy the recruitment challenge with Gen Z in particular, compelling narratives highlighting the lifelong value of military service are essential. As he writes, "we will need to convince today’s young Americans that they are part of something special and that now is their time to step forward to protect this cherished way of life, even if only for a few years. Time in the military for citizens is more than worth it, it’s life-defining and good…and necessary for a free-people. More than any other policy that addresses this concerning trend of recruitment shortfalls, including smart and deserving economic incentives for service, this inspiration to serve must be imparted if we are to survive and flourish in the 21^(st) century."

In the third essay, "Military Recruiting Shortfalls—A Recurring Challenge," Ohio State military historian and retired Army colonel Peter Mansoor charts how, since the inauguration of the all-volunteer force in 1973, "recruitment has risen and fallen in conjunction with civilian employment. When economic activity dipped, young men and women could find employment at decent wages by joining the armed services. As wages stagnated in the 1980s and 1990s, military wages compared favorably with civilian jobs and recruiting remained relatively constant. Young Americans serving a tour of duty could acquire job skills and save money for college, helped by the GI Bill. After 2008, educational benefits increased significantly, allowing veterans to attend up to four years of college essentially for free. America’s strong economy has disincentivized enlistment in the armed forces in recent years..."

But Mansoor joins the other authors in noting that, beyond labor market economics, "deeper cultural issues are also at play. Fewer Americans today view a tour in the military as a rite of passage or as a debt owed to the nation." While acknowledging that there is no "silver bullet" that will change the cultural attitudes of America's youth toward military service overnight, Mansoor points out, "One thing the Marines do is put a great deal of emphasis on recruiting by putting their strongest personnel into recruiting positions, something the other services should copy." He also floats the idea of Congress passing legislation to grant "citizenship to immigrants who serve for a certain number of years in the military."

Finally, turning to an alternate mechanism to boost military membership— the draft—Mansoor argues, "reinstituting the draft is an option, but absent an existential national security crisis, doing so is politically unpalatable. The shortfall in recruiting is relatively small compared with each draft-eligible year group, meaning the drafting of personnel to fill the shortages would be seen as highly unfair and inequitable to those drafted. The armed services do not want to go back to the days of the draftee military, with its discipline and morale challenges. Absent a clear and present danger to the nation, the draft will remain dormant. It is instead incumbent upon the leaders of the armed services to work with the administration and Congress to enact policies that will overcome their current recruiting challenges."

This writeup is intended to provide an overview of arguments and authors in this essay series; you can view the full Issue 96 of Strategika here.

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental,

* Be polite and civil,

* Use capitalization,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Please minimize editorializing, please make your opinions clearly distinct from the content of the article or source, please do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles,

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis nor swear,

* Use foul imagery,

* Use acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters,

* Make it personal,

* Try to out someone,

* Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section, or try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

​

Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules.

Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.

Russia puts nuclear weapons in Belarus which deters NATO invasion (if NATO would want such a thing in the first place).

On the other hand, there was all the talk in NATO about conscription for fighting Russia after Russia defeats Ukraine, including president Biden talking about it.

It looks like NATO is perfectly willing to accept a Russian invasion of Poland and Baltic states and fight a war of attrition here.

Why doesn't NATO want to prevent such war through nuclear deterrent?

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental,

* Be polite and civil,

* Use capitalization,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Please minimize editorializing, please make your opinions clearly distinct from the content of the article or source, please do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles,

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis nor swear,

* Use foul imagery,

* Use acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters,

* Make it personal,

* Try to out someone,

* Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section, or try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

​

Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules.

Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.

link

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental,

* Be polite and civil,

* Use capitalization,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Please minimize editorializing, please make your opinions clearly distinct from the content of the article or source, please do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles,

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis nor swear,

* Use foul imagery,

* Use acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters,

* Make it personal,

* Try to out someone,

* Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section, or try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

​

Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules.

Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.

I've come across a multitude of videos on various sites that show Ukranian drone operators engaging either unarmed or seemingly surrendering combatants. A variety of people are claiming or dismissing that doing so is a war crime so I was hoping that the people in this subreddit could shed some light on it.
Here's some examples as to what I mean, I'd appreciate it if someone could affirm whether the videos are considered war crimes or not -
https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1gyac7l/final_moments_of_encounter_between_fpv_drone_and/
https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1gaj2ea/ukrainian_kamikaze_drone_hits_a_group_of_russian/
https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/1cvksxy/ukrainian_fpv_drone_takes_out_3_wounded_russian/
https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/16os33s/russian_soldier_begs_for_mercy_from_a_ukrainian/

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental,

* Be polite and civil,

* Use capitalization,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Please minimize editorializing, please make your opinions clearly distinct from the content of the article or source, please do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles,

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis nor swear,

* Use foul imagery,

* Use acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters,

* Make it personal,

* Try to out someone,

* Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section, or try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

​

Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules.

Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental,

* Be polite and civil,

* Use capitalization,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Please minimize editorializing, please make your opinions clearly distinct from the content of the article or source, please do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles,

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis nor swear,

* Use foul imagery,

* Use acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters,

* Make it personal,

* Try to out someone,

* Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section, or try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

​

Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules.

Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental,

* Be polite and civil,

* Use capitalization,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Please minimize editorializing, please make your opinions clearly distinct from the content of the article or source, please do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles,

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis nor swear,

* Use foul imagery,

* Use acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters,

* Make it personal,

* Try to out someone,

* Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section, or try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

​

Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules.

Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental,

* Be polite and civil,

* Use capitalization,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Please minimize editorializing, please make your opinions clearly distinct from the content of the article or source, please do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles,

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis nor swear,

* Use foul imagery,

* Use acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters,

* Make it personal,

* Try to out someone,

* Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section, or try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

​

Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules.

Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental,

* Be polite and civil,

* Use capitalization,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Please minimize editorializing, please make your opinions clearly distinct from the content of the article or source, please do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles,

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis nor swear,

* Use foul imagery,

* Use acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters,

* Make it personal,

* Try to out someone,

* Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section, or try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

​

Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules.

Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.

My understanding is that the usage of machine gun turrets to defend bombers ended with development of missiles. But I am getting intrigued by the rise of armored vehicle active protection systems such as Trophy and by CIWS on US carriers.

I am imagining a truly huge aircraft, maybe a 747 equipped with six AESA radars (one on each side) and six cannons. This should be able to track and shot down incoming ground to air and air to air missiles. Instead of being stealthy it would rely on massive armament to thwart any attack. The primary purpose of such a thing would be heavy bomber, but I suppose you could mount howitzers to the side and use it as an oversized AC-130.

Would something like that be feasible?

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental,

* Be polite and civil,

* Use capitalization,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Please minimize editorializing, please make your opinions clearly distinct from the content of the article or source, please do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles,

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis nor swear,

* Use foul imagery,

* Use acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters,

* Make it personal,

* Try to out someone,

* Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section, or try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

​

Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules.

Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental,

* Be polite and civil,

* Use capitalization,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Please minimize editorializing, please make your opinions clearly distinct from the content of the article or source, please do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles,

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis nor swear,

* Use foul imagery,

* Use acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters,

* Make it personal,

* Try to out someone,

* Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section, or try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

​

Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules.

Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental,

* Be polite and civil,

* Use capitalization,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Please minimize editorializing, please make your opinions clearly distinct from the content of the article or source, please do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles,

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis nor swear,

* Use foul imagery,

* Use acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters,

* Make it personal,

* Try to out someone,

* Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section, or try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

​

Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules.

Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.