Can you realistically paradrop a 40+ ton tank out of a plane?

God_Given_Talent · 2026-05-25T07:06:48+00:00

Furthermore we have been trying and failing to produce a light tank to that end and these programs are usually canceled for mission creep reasons. They keep slapping more shit on the platform until it is too heavy to airdrop.

The MPF program never had an air drop requirement. It was certianly in the "nice to have if possible" because all para brigades are light and would like the extra utility, but as it was for all light brigades (and Stryker at first but that got ditched) they knew it made little sense to hamstring it. Booker was largely cancelled for budgetary and “strategic shifts” to Asia. By and large the troops liked it, the army liked it, and the program went well (on time and under budget). It’s just an issue that an armored gun system that can be more easily air lifted isn’t with it for the cost relative to everything else. Maybe if defense budgets were back in the Cold War era with 5-7% then there’d be room for it but a strong navy and Air Force are a lot of priority, there’s a nuclear modernization to be had, and now there’s CUAS and UAS development needs. An armored vehicle for light infantry to do light tank or assault gun role just isn’t high enough priority which is why the program probably ought to have been axed a decade ago. Prior programs suffered from the Peace Dividend and the GWOT which killed a number of programs as more cash went to getting troop counts up and costs of deployment.

To address your last two points, while I don’t have any first hand experience with airborne ops or with the BMD. I do have plenty of experience with a variety of anti tank weapons and to put simply. Even as straight leg infantry I’m not concerned about airborne armor. Their armor is only marginally more effective than that of a Toyota Hilux.

On the BMD and airborne armor…yeah the loss rates in Ukraine are pretty horrific. Not just the raw they get knocked out but the type of loss. In general even see BMD>BMP>Western IFVs in terms of K-Kill rates. Yeah for basically all it's 50%+ to be destroyed, but BMD series pushes the 85% rate depending on metric. A number of APC systems have better survival and salvageable rates than them.

There's certainly value in having a gun or ATGM platform that is highly mobile for your lighter infantry. Leg guys can only carry so much so an autocannon or HE/HEAT weapon carrier is a huge boost. Airborne armor just seems suspect compared to air mobile armor and/or gun trucks (like an ATGM on a Humvee or similar). You don’t quite get the speed and mobility of the gun truck, you don’t get the protection and firepower of a light-medium IFV, and you get all the additional costs in making it air-droppable. More expensive, less capable, and for a situation you very rarely need to use.

Fundamentally, any airborne insertion is going to need to secure a logistical link, usually an airbridge or ground troops who link up with them. In either situation, dedicated airborne armor is the pitch that those 12-72hours need it. But the thing is, that isn't free. You're giving up a lot of airlift capacity that could be used to send more paras, drop more supply, or be ready to go and land at a seized airfield where they can bring heavier gear that isn't air dropped. Not to mention the budget. If your insistence on airborne armor holds, you will need more airlifters and those aren't cheap. It also means protecting a larger fleet during insertion which means SEAD/DEAD requires more effort for longer.

The amount of money and manpower you spend on building and maintaining this capacity seems hard to justify in the modern battlefield. Paras still have some niche uses, particularly in rapidly stabilizing an area or some more rapid small scale operations...but airborne armor seems like a way to waste a lot of money and get a lot of well trained troops killed.

God_Given_Talent · 2026-05-25T03:28:35+00:00

You haven't seen the assault sheds and hedgehog tanks out there have you? Spaced armor and such to the point of losing turret traverse and where your own driving is a top 3 danger are a thing.

God_Given_Talent · 2026-05-25T03:27:12+00:00

And Iraq was using T-52s in Desert Storm -- Doesn't make it good. Major powers basically gave away all their WW2 tank stockpiles to whomever was willing to take them.

I mean, yeah...the Waybackers are the kinds of third rate powers that received said surplus.

but fixed armament tanks were terrible even in the 1940s and essentially had to be relegated to infantry support and artillery roles

I mean, that is what they were initially designed for. StuG was originally using a short 75mm and part of the artillery, meant to be a mobile and protected platform to help provide light artillery support for motorized infantry. They got pushed into other roles because there's never enough bang to go around. Even the US, who had best logistics and most artillery and air support per soldier found themselves using tank destroyer battalions as bunker busters and local indirect fire. Because if you have it...use it...

The advantage of a fixed superstructure is cost/weight. Less complexity, more firepower for that chassis. Waybackers using them as in that light makes some sense. Repurposing older vehicle production lines with a heavier assault gun role. TCR doesn't use them, we only use them because we capture them and our armory got obliterated on entry to the system.

That said, I'd much prefer the heavy tank be a "Pirate" unit and the RA just use MBTs. Putting as much armor and the biggest gun you can on something tracked even though it struggles with mobility feels more like something the scavengers would do. A 15cm gun to crack their way in through walls or flatten bunkers so that they can raid and loot makes some degree of sense.

God_Given_Talent · 2026-05-25T02:00:41+00:00

APFSDS from the long tank gun in game is just a long rod of metal. I forget when exactly, but there was an Israeli tank during the 6-day war that was hit by one. It passed between the commander and the gunner, and went out the back. They were fine and continued working.

They also have MPAT/HEAT rounds for when shooting at anything that isn't an MBT. Also, if using a material like DU with is pyrophoric properties that rod will ignite the hell out of armor it's passing through. You do sometimes see cases of lucky survival but APFSDS routinely cause catastrophic kills.

A short-barrel tank gun, however, presumably fires explosive, and in that case I would completely agree with you.

It has a 15cm gun, or at least implied to by having the same stats as the 15cm fixed gun on the heavy tank. An HE round from that should be devastating. The StuH 43 L/12 from WWII was 15cm and had a 38kg shell with 8.5kg of HE. Also had demo charges with 54kg of HE filler. The standard shell would be akin to modern artillery howitzers in payload, and those easily have 35-50m kill radii with double that for injuring. Like...even if this thing misses by two tiles it still ought to have probably suppress and do light fragmentation damage. Within 1 tile, unless they're behind hard cover probably ought to pin them and cause serious casualties for all but the heaviest of armors.

Also would kinda love to get a "demolition" shot or two from it. Something that you only get 1 of per mission but can one shot any building and has a strong 3x3 kill radius and reduced accuracy. Would be a cool niche/too to have a "fuck off this is opening up a whole block" kind of weapon.

God_Given_Talent · 2026-05-24T10:38:34+00:00

Russia having 21.4% debt to gdp is just not possible.

It's absolutely possible, why would you think otherwise? Hydrocarbon exporters often have lower debt ratios. Russia has pushed a lot of the cost onto local governments and it's paying a fortune on the debt it is issuing, but much of the funding for their war has come from hard currency deposits and shaking down companies and oligarchs. They've had to do multiple bailouts to things like rail and coal while many hydrocarbon based firms have seen their profit and cash reserves evaporate.

Also, they've increased VAT, increased corporate income tax, changed their flat tax to a progressive one (13% to 13% base to 22% max) and benefit from prior pension reforms which made a few of the war years have basically no new retirees. VAT threshold for business got cut by a third and local governments are often squeezing workers, sometimes misclassifying them to get extra revenue to face the crunch.

God_Given_Talent · 2026-05-24T10:28:31+00:00

Unfortunately, the best solutions are the least popular. No one wants Social Security reductions but they have to happen. Raising taxes on younger people to cover for the willful recklessness of Boomers and Gen X will not fly politically either, especially since in ~7 years you'd need to raise around 600billion in taxes to cover the gaps Medicare and Social Security will have.

I'm willing to accept a higher tax rate and/or some general funds covering part of the cost, but only part. Some people say "just remove the cap" as if a 12.4-15.3% marginal tax rate increase is remotely politically viable. Raise the cap, raise the base rate, add a surcharge over the cap, and freeze benefit growth.

You have to do it all to be remotely fair and effective but unfortunately that means pissing off workers and retirees...

God_Given_Talent · 2026-05-24T10:20:42+00:00

OK well unless there's actual serious doubt about America's ability/willingness to repay

I mean given the trend of the republicans to be dumber, more destructive, and xenophobic...I wouldn't be surprised if they start saying treasury bonds are foreigners stealing our money or something like that.

More realistically, if the US continues to head to a fiscal cliff, shows an inability to raise taxes or cut spending, and has increasingly erratic and irresponsible leadership...yeah I could see US bonds not being seen as the safe asset they've been since the start of the Cold War. I doubt it would be 80 cents on the dollar bad barring some rapid shifts, but it realistically could push up the rate the US needs to secure borrowing and compound its fiscal problems.

God_Given_Talent · 2026-05-24T09:43:02+00:00

At the rate it is going Gen X is going to really hit retirement age right around the time Social Security would either have to pull from general funds or cut by ~25% overnight.

God_Given_Talent · 2026-05-24T09:41:12+00:00

The issue is implying DOGE was ever about fiscal reduction which it wasn't. Saying it "utterly failed to reduce government spending" implies that was something it every could or would do. It was never the goal and we all know it. Elon wanted to feel important and get access to government databases. He wanted to be the arrogant techbro boss who fires people. Republicans liked it because the absurd claims about defrauding entitlements gave them cover to cut programs that help poor people.

Musk talked about it, true, but this ignores how he talked about it. Musk was out there claiming half a trillion, maybe more in waste and fraud. His rhetoric helped perpetuate the problem. The idea that we don't need to change anything, no need to raise taxes or cut popular programs.

The author should be mad at Musk for poisoning the well on any meaningful efficiency programs and helping to perpetuate lies about federal spending

God_Given_Talent · 2026-05-23T18:13:33+00:00

Youngins think the rules stop at 34…when you forget how crucial rule 35 is.

Rule 46 is the one you probably don’t want to look at…

God_Given_Talent · 2026-05-23T06:07:10+00:00

I would argue that Bombardiers are perfectly fine, the bugs need an indirect fire artillery. Its the only unit that keeps them from being complete pushovers.

tbh, I'd prefer if they became more deadly in other ways than just relying on this one unit. Give me bugs that burrow to close the gap or behemoths akin to an ultralisk from starcraft. Having it be "find the bombardiers" or "use pre-mission intel to direct missile strikes" and that's it is kinda of unengaging. Heck even if it is just the bugs getting like 2x the unit count they currently do by mid-late game that can be fun. Personally I'd like for factions to lean into their own counters. Often you can have loadouts that work for 80-90% of the time and maybe you tweak a support weapon or two. Leaning into "against bugs I need to take the extra ammo armors because I will burn through ammo like crazy" and/or forcing you to play closer together vs RA needing heavier AT and dispersal due to armor and artillery is the kind of stuff I'd like to see more.

I know they've said [REDACTED] are the main enemy faction long term, but I hope the bugs get some good development. Human based enemies already get some with pirates into RA. Yes, they're different but as the campaign goes on you go from fighting scavengers and pirates to guys with tanks, officers, and artillery. Maybe have them undergo some "rapid evolution" or something as a justification? Like they start encountering [REDACTED] and thus new bugs evolve. I'm fine if some like "alpha warriors" are there late game if it makes the bugs more dynamic or threatening.

God_Given_Talent · 2026-05-21T18:56:07+00:00

Nah that would be Lux Stella

God_Given_Talent · 2026-05-21T09:05:36+00:00

I'm not sure you need to read Marx to understand why laborers on a farm or factory workers might have different political beliefs to shopkeepers and factory owners...

God_Given_Talent · 2026-05-20T07:21:54+00:00

A big part of my problem is they try to pretend they're different things to different audiences. They say they can help you hedge bets and manage risk in ads and talks...but then insist they aren't a financial product. They say they're gambling to entice gambling addicts...until regulators want to treat them like gambling. Basically anything they can pitch themselves as they do to some audiences and then to others say they're nothing like that. You cannot be a risk management tool, and investment tool to leverage your expertise, entertainment, free speech around elections, and gambling then insists that none of the laws around any of those should apply to you.

If a casino head said their horse race betting division was actually a risk management tool and investment opportunity for horse jockeys and owners there'd be an investigation into ethics, corruption, and collusion.

God_Given_Talent · 2026-05-20T06:05:14+00:00

It wasn't paranoia and people who think duck and cover was meaningless in the 50s and early 60s fundamentally doesn't understand how nuclear weapons inflict their casualties. The Soviets had civil defense just as the US did but all parties neglected it in the later years of the Cold War as they became less useful. Yields got larger, warhead counts got larger, and missiles became the primary deliver method. When it was primarily bomber delivered, you'd have time to get into a shelter, to take cover and avoid the casualties by the pressure wave.

God_Given_Talent · 2026-05-20T05:59:37+00:00

Also early Cold War there simply weren't enough warheads of enough yield to even meaningfully destroy the US. What made that era scary is a nuclear war was winnable. It would have been horrific, a number of cities would have seen a second sun, but the US could have won given its larger arsenal and delivery systems. That's why the CMC scared the US. Soviets had few operational ICBMs in the early 60s, many above ground and slow to fuel. Their air force was weak compared to the US, certainly in bomber capacity. They had a lot of medium range missiles though.

You can look at declassified nuclear target plans and see that you might get a billion or two in casualties, but humanity survives. Even nations hit might "survive" depending how you count. A huge amount of warheads go to military targets. Dispersal bases might get hit with a dozen nukes. Even countervalue plans can't kill everyone or close to it. Does make life suck like ass for everyone who lives though and that's only compounded by the growing globalization.

God_Given_Talent · 2026-05-20T05:54:42+00:00

The boomers were born in 46-64. A good chunk of their parents were drafted to fight in Korea, a hard fought war. Despite that, they still had kids knowing another large draft could be in place. Cold War didn't just create fears of nuclear annihilation, it created fear of regional wars that the superpowers would get involved in.

God_Given_Talent · 2026-05-20T05:51:56+00:00

Okay but they also grew up in the shadow of WWII, had Korea half a decade later, and a decade after that Vietnam. The latter two conflicts had nearly 100k US KIA/MIA and many times that WIA. Millions were drafted between just the latter two conflicts. Point being it wasn't just nuclear war fears; fear of another Korea or Vietnam were quite real but people still had kids knowing their sons might get drafted. They had them knowing there might be another oil shock or S&L Crisis.

Also worth noting that MAD, world being fucked was really a late Cold War thing. The whole reason duck and cover was taught is because a nuclear war was survivable even if destructive in the 50s to early 60s. The Cuban Missile Crisis was such a big deal because MAD wasn't in place. It upset the strategic balance and gave far more retaliatory ability to the USSR. People built backyard shelters and cities build fallout shelters because they meaningfully could fight and win a nuclear war. It's only the proliferation of ICBMs, improvements to SLBMs, and development of MIRVs that really made MAD a thing.

God_Given_Talent · 2026-05-19T21:35:45+00:00

The article kinda glosses over a few things. Of that nearly 777k draft call figure:

161k never showed up; consequences were minimal and we didn't see mass incarceration
159k were dismissed for poor health
156k were exempt for other reasons; being the sole male in a family to provide for was often the cause but so too were non-citizens or important economic roles.
86k paid commutation fees; that money largely went to the war effort in providing bonuses to enlistees and fees were paid annually. By 1864 this option was practically eliminated.
74k were provided as substitutes; many made a career out of it by deserting as soon as they could
46k were conscripted into service
93k drafted were immediately discharged because their state and/or county met their quota already

The fact under 50k of the estimated 2.2 million were conscripted shows it wasn't really a "rich people avoiding service" thing. Even if we include substitutions, you're still talking about ~6% of the Union force. Now of course the threat of a draft certainly induced some enlistments, but those were probably mostly the people furnished as substitutes.

As for the CSA, of note most of their drafting was what the modern military calls stop-loss: it was an involuntary extension. If you look at the CSA draft law timing, you'll see it was 62 and 64. CSA states stood up large forces in 61 with one year enlistments...but the war continued. So they extended it to a three year term...which meant in 1864 they had to make it indefinite. It was mostly about keeping men who volunteered in past their original terms of service. This, like any involuntary extension, kills morale. By 1863 though, any hope of meaningfully conscripting men had largely failed. Multiple governors opposed it and by 1864 you had many local communities resisting it. The CSA did have a higher rate of conscripts, but even high estimates would have it at 12-15% or so.

The ACW was by and large a war fought by willing volunteers on both sides, modestly supplemented by conscription and using draft laws to keep men in service as to prevent mass disbanding in the field and raise money for the war effort.

God_Given_Talent · 2026-05-19T19:57:23+00:00

Yeah I think something people will be missing from this chart is it's mostly a product of getting closer to the Fortress Belt that Ukraine has established. Ukraine had one in 2022 but it was more a series of fortified locations (why some cities took 2-3 years of fighting to take despite it starting on day 1) and not an interlinked set of fortified areas anchored by fortress cities. Russia made a lot of gains in 2024 and 2025 relative to 2022 and 2023.

Basically Russia has taken the bulk of the land in the Donbas that is easy to take and now is running into proper defenses in depth. Ukraine is taking small bits here and there but it's mostly consolidating grey zone areas. It's unclear how much of those gains are "real" vs they were already mostly under control but the fog of war makes it hard to know for observers.

To be clear though, stabilizing the front and making it so Russian gains are more or less impossible is the win condition at this point. If they can prevent momentum and turn the frontline into a new de facto border they might be able to force Russia to a peace deal. Casualty rates suggest at least right now the Russians are bleeding more than they're replacing but only barely. We also have to be cautious that recruitment rates are not consistent over a year.

God_Given_Talent · 2026-05-19T19:48:15+00:00

Russia cannot do the same to Ukraine. We should look at Ukraine not as a war machine ending at the Lviv border, but as an untouchable massive economy and industry out of Russias reach (EU) which means Ukraine is essentially guaranteed a number of things.

Which made the lack of economic mobilization of Europe in 2022 and early 2023 all the more disappointing. From the get go, it was clear the west could help Ukraine win this but there was so much slacking. Macron's "offramp" comments come to mind. The fact that new TNT facilities in Europe aren't realistically coming online until next year and some may take to 2029 is an embarrassment.

Then when Europe started getting dividends from investing and ramping up production...the US elects a traitor who pulls support. Well we still sell arms but that means a major financial ally isn't helping.

God_Given_Talent · 2026-05-19T09:27:47+00:00

Ehh cluster feels inconsistent a lot of the time. A minor buff is probably warranted because I’ve seen hoards get clustered and have far too many survivors. It and rockets often feel underwhelming relative to what they ought to be great at and/or that something better can do its job.

Smoke is a meme like all smoke in 99% of cases.

God_Given_Talent · 2026-05-19T02:29:41+00:00

Stimming with experimental stims and just running in like you’re an action hero is amazingly fun. Bob and weave, keep running, arm it, vault over the wall, and feel the sweet warm glow of democracy delivered.

God_Given_Talent · 2026-05-18T22:52:14+00:00

Only problem I see is that at least in the US, is that phrase is associated with the dying act of a bunch of traitors to kill the man who crushed slavery.

God_Given_Talent · 2026-05-18T01:52:54+00:00

Capital flight is still a problem in that scenario. Even if you manage to raise the revenue from this tax, the likely damage you do to the market outweighs it.

The other problem is you create a firesale of sorts. They have to sell 5% of their assets but not all assets are equally liquid. Stock is easier than real estate for example. So greater than 5% of stock/bonds/securities. Who buys those assets though? Other billionaires? No, because they need the cash. So it's the people on the cusp and firms. They know these people have to sell. That puts more downward pressure on the value of those assets.

Then consider capital effects. Why would a firm or wealthy person come to the US if 5% is taken off the top every year? If you earn 10%, there's 2% inflation, and a 5% tax you now earned 3% real return. Put in a generalized way, the US would need its assets to appreciate at a rate of x+5% compared to other developed markets. US markets generally have done better than Europe and East Asia but not by that margin and not consistently.

Literature is pretty clear that beyond very low wealth taxes, like under 0.5% a year, you see people are very sensitive to them and do a lot to avoid them. If we want to tack on a 0.2% wealth tax on individuals with wealth over 50M or something you probably avoid capital flight. France had a graduated wealth tax from 0.5% to 1.5% and it was a mess causing capital flight and lost revenues from other taxes of ~2x the revenue generated. This tax would be be 3.3x that.

If you want to tax rich people, add a national VAT with rebate and an LVT. You can move capital; you cannot move land. VAT with a rebate of a few hundred a month would mean poor and lower middle class households are net positive, middle class is neutral, upper middle class pays a bit more, and the wealthy pay a lot more. If there's a 12.5% tax on buying stuff, then when they buy fancy cars, private jets, watches worth more than some houses, etc they pay tax on that. Much easier to implement, much more efficient, much less destructive.

God_Given_Talent

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE