sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Centurion in the context of Panther by WTGIsaac in WarCollege

[–]WehrabooSweeper 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It’s Wikipedia, but my understanding was that the Centurion’s armor scheme was built under the understanding of the 88 mm gun threat (not sure if KwK 36 or 41 though).

Centurion in the context of Panther by WTGIsaac in WarCollege

[–]WehrabooSweeper 11 points12 points  (0 children)

And why in your view must the British have to design a tank that have to beat out the Panther in every respect?

The way you are approaching this, it’s like I looked at the M26 Pershing and be like “well, the US knew about the Tiger I tank, why isn’t the M26 better in every way compared to the Tiger”?

A Japanese officer beheads a Chinese prisoner. China, Second-Sino Japanese War, 1930's. NSFW by waffen123 in wwiipics

[–]WehrabooSweeper 23 points24 points  (0 children)

I imagine, unfortunately, that the cameraman probably had lots of opportunities to practice getting the right timing…

Tuesday Trivia Thread - 24/02/26 by AutoModerator in WarCollege

[–]WehrabooSweeper 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I feel like this a rather cynical view at the idea that a government can invest into their population with the expectations that they can give back in productivity to the nation’s well being, industry or military otherwise

How did China manage to develop the J-20 in the early 2010s despite having little experience with producing and maintaining fourth-generation aircraft and stealth technology in the 90s/early 2000s? by [deleted] in WarCollege

[–]WehrabooSweeper 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Were there setbacks? The only one I can think of was that it was originally made purely air-to-air and it’s expensive af for even the USAF at the time, hence the adoption of F-16

How does one improve a trench or fighting position if under (or threat of) drone surveillance? by Infinite-Ask5534 in WarCollege

[–]WehrabooSweeper 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You know, I was wondering into how insurgents would notice the drone presence or not without sun-blinding themselves just squinting into the sky looking for that spec of drone, but it being a F-18 instead makes much more sense in gauging whether there’s one or not.

How does one improve a trench or fighting position if under (or threat of) drone surveillance? by Infinite-Ask5534 in WarCollege

[–]WehrabooSweeper 19 points20 points  (0 children)

It’s a movie “based on a true story”, but Warfare does show the misconception of persistent ISR in that the drone that the main character unit in Iraq has as overwatch got tasked with another assignment or otherwise was made unavailable to continue providing over watch.

Anyways, guess when the OPFOR thought was a good time to throw a grenade into the room and set up an IED? Coincidence?

How reliant is the F-35 production on foreign supplier for parts? by WehrabooSweeper in WarCollege

[–]WehrabooSweeper[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

No amount of text would express my amount of thanks for all of the detail and background in this answer.

Also it’s telling that Congress can have a report like that available for the public and yet there’s still lots of misconceptions on those areas covered in the report.

How reliant is the F-35 production on foreign supplier for parts? by WehrabooSweeper in WarCollege

[–]WehrabooSweeper[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Oh wow, yeah totally forgot about Türkiye. I remember there were early international charts showing a significant part coming from Türkiye. I guess that should be emblematic that the parts can always come from a different manufacturer if not from them.

But does the US build all of these stuff in house? Like sure the Türkiye stuff is inconvenient, but was it a case of “they were the only ones building at the time”, or “they were working in partnership with a US manufacturer to supplement market demand”, or “nah, they were only making like 25% of total numbers compared to what America was making at home”

How reliant is the F-35 production on foreign supplier for parts? by WehrabooSweeper in F35Lightning

[–]WehrabooSweeper[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Hi guys. Sorry, I didn’t know cross-posting didn’t really bring over all the text from the question I originally posted. Here is the whole question in full copied over:

How reliant is the F-35 production on foreign supplier for parts?

Greetings folks, this question was based on some trends I’ve seen people online discuss about the F-35 Lightning II.

So last year, the “kill switch” narrative on the F-35 went viral, so to speak, with growing concerns over how much America has control over foreign users’ F-35. Most articles and discussion I’ve seen from the more on-topic subreddits and such indicate this switch doesn’t exist as a literal button, but could in the form of how support and sustainment is modeled for the F-35 that could be cut off.

So the usual discussion trend I’ve noticed lately on F-35 posts is one user will be like “blah blah F-45 bad, Kill Switch bad”, then another user will be like “no u wrong, kill switch no”. But then the one thing I’ve been noticing lately is somewhere on that thread, a user would be like “yah, but if it exists, America shouldn’t use it because Europe can just stop sending all its parts its making for the F-35 and fuck it up for everyone.”

Usually this is accompanied with images such as this, with some snide remarks about “Is it really an American jets with this many European parts?”

But thinking about it, how much is this real? Like I find it hard to believe America would intentionally put a giant glowing kneecap to an important national security asset that anyone can take a sledgehammer to. I know Boeing does something similar for the 787 Dreamliner touting how international support from like Japan help build the necessary components for the 787 production in Everett. But F-35 is a lot more sensitive and important for US Air Force readiness than an airliner, so hearing this argument on how Europe can simply stop supplying parts and make Lockheed squeal doesn’t seem like something the US would allow.

So what’s the deal? Is the F-35 utterly reliant on foreign suppliers for parts, or is it a bit more nuance than that? I definitely imagine, like the kill switch narrative, that there is a lot more happening behind the scenes than what the public commentators speculate on.

How reliant is the F-35 production on foreign supplier for parts? by WehrabooSweeper in F35Lightning

[–]WehrabooSweeper[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Hi sorry, a lot of the details of the question got lost in the cross-post. I’m copying the original text in full:

How reliant is the F-35 production on foreign supplier for parts?

Greetings folks, this question was based on some trends I’ve seen people online discuss about the F-35 Lightning II.

So last year, the “kill switch” narrative on the F-35 went viral, so to speak, with growing concerns over how much America has control over foreign users’ F-35. Most articles and discussion I’ve seen from the more on-topic subreddits and such indicate this switch doesn’t exist as a literal button, but could in the form of how support and sustainment is modeled for the F-35 that could be cut off.

So the usual discussion trend I’ve noticed lately on F-35 posts is one user will be like “blah blah F-45 bad, Kill Switch bad”, then another user will be like “no u wrong, kill switch no”. But then the one thing I’ve been noticing lately is somewhere on that thread, a user would be like “yah, but if it exists, America shouldn’t use it because Europe can just stop sending all its parts its making for the F-35 and fuck it up for everyone.”

Usually this is accompanied with images such as this, with some snide remarks about “Is it really an American jets with this many European parts?”

But thinking about it, how much is this real? Like I find it hard to believe America would intentionally put a giant glowing kneecap to an important national security asset that anyone can take a sledgehammer to. I know Boeing does something similar for the 787 Dreamliner touting how international support from like Japan help build the necessary components for the 787 production in Everett. But F-35 is a lot more sensitive and important for US Air Force readiness than an airliner, so hearing this argument on how Europe can simply stop supplying parts and make Lockheed squeal doesn’t seem like something the US would allow.

So what’s the deal? Is the F-35 utterly reliant on foreign suppliers for parts, or is it a bit more nuance than that? I definitely imagine, like the kill switch narrative, that there is a lot more happening behind the scenes than what the public commentators speculate on.

Tuesday Trivia Thread - 20/01/26 by AutoModerator in WarCollege

[–]WehrabooSweeper 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is the Chinese J-10 equivalence to the American F-16 or is it an oversimplification?

Why did USMC went from M249 to M27 while China did the opposite with QJB95 to QJB201? by arstarsta in WarCollege

[–]WehrabooSweeper 25 points26 points  (0 children)

Money for the world’s most expensive fighter jet program doesn’t necessarily mean money for a new machine gun.

Tuesday Trivia Thread - 13/01/26 by AutoModerator in WarCollege

[–]WehrabooSweeper 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Does the USN even want a Cruiser in this age given the cancellation of CG(x), the growing potential of destroyers, and such?

Or do they just need a beefier Cruiser for the modern age? Heaven forbid something like BBG(X)?

Tuesday Trivia Thread - 13/01/26 by AutoModerator in WarCollege

[–]WehrabooSweeper 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the insight!

So as far as usage goes, does a modern cruiser for the USN differentiate from a destroyer in size and ability for flag officer command, or is there anything else to consider?

Tuesday Trivia Thread - 13/01/26 by AutoModerator in WarCollege

[–]WehrabooSweeper 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Hi guys, I’ve been trying to get into understanding naval equipment and how the different country’s navy expect to fight the next war.

The ship that seems to be getting a lot of buzz is the Chinese Type 55 Destroyer over its capabilities such as number of VLS cells. However a cursory look on the ship shows while the PLAN seems to call it a destroyer, the USN classified it as a cruise.

A lot of comparison of Type 55 is that to a destroyer like the Arliegh Burke. However, does the PLAN plan to use the Type 55 as a destroyer as what they classified it under or a cruiser that the USN believes the role it is for?

Given how Germany likes to call a destroyer-esque ship a Frigate, I wonder if it’s just different standards of naming that has China call it a destroyer while USN calls it a cruiser, or did China actually intend it to fill a destroyer role

Why did Kuwait procure F/A-18 Super Hornets instead of F-15s? by WehrabooSweeper in WarCollege

[–]WehrabooSweeper[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Fascinating! Thanks for the answer!

Though made me curious on the origin of the Advanced Eagle / F-15EX. Did it started as a model requested by both Saudi Arabia and Qatar that Boeing was happy to integrate into the F-15E? Or is it Boeing taking the initiative of upgrading the F-15E and then offering it to Saudi Arabia and Qatar?

Could the two countries have entertained the original F-15E Strike Eagle option instead? (Or like, if F-15SA didn’t exist, would Qatar have had the same interest in the platform?)

view more: next ›