2025 Victory Day parade thread (workup, 3rd Sept)

[Temstar]

Minor interesting thing noticed by Yankee:


During practice DF-61 had its number painted at the exact same location as DF-41 in 2019, yet when it came time to do it for real they had the number adjusted so it's ahead of the air conditioning ducts instead.

 

[plawolf]

As of now there are no longer any technological constraints preventing the 2029 or 2035 parade be made up of humanoid combat droids formations followed by large walking battle mechs and PLA troops in power armor, of course in practice we're more likely to see quadrupeds, maybe large hybrid electric ones with cannons, which would still be cool.

Personally I think the first true power armour deployment in the real world will be in the form of power armoured troops riding quadruped mounts.

Currently the key limiting factor for true power armour is in making a power source compact enough. The mount side steps that issue by allowing you to use the mount to carry the primary power source, with the power armour itself only needing a secondary power source that only needs to last for a few hours instead of days or weeks.

The mounts also solves the speed problem with power armour, as slow prodding suits will get absolutely obliterated by ATGMs and FPVs.

But sadly, in the world of FPVs, power armour might become obsolete before its even developed, as no level of protecting such power could realistically provide would be enough to protect against FPVs with shaped charge warheads.

 

[mack8]

As of now FPVs are quite slow so an active defense system would it be too much of a stretch to go with power armour? Either MW or kinetic or maybe both. Something like Predator's laser gun (i don't mean an actual laser gun, not yet anyway) but arranged for widest possible FOV.

Again, i kinda grin like an idiot seeing that we have serious discussions about PLA fielding stuff that it was literally sci-fi until recently. It's just mind-boggling.

 

[Blitzo]

Sigh, I'm going to delete all the posts from the Bill Sweetman article and afterwards, because people seem to not be literate and are more focused on trying to score silly "wins" when there aren't any to begin with.

@Maikeru, in future can you be more selective about articles that you post?
If you feel like you post an article that has the capability to generate responses like "look at them coping" then consider not posting them in future. It is getting tiresome. Or at they very least give a justification/description to pre-empt and prevent others from responding in that manner.

I am also deleting a couple of the posts about the ridiculous submarine matter. I'm not sure who would believe in the modern age that noises made by crew inside a submarine would be the decisive factor in acoustic silencing.

 

[zbb]

Many soldiers in the parade were equipped with a nearly phone sized device on their wrists.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

这款终端不仅具备强大的通信能力，能够在各种复杂环境中保持稳定连接，还能实时传输战场动态，精准引导打击目标，甚至监测士兵的身体状况。
This terminal not only has powerful communication capabilities and can maintain a stable connection in various complex environments, but can also transmit battlefield dynamics in real time, accurately guide strike targets, and even monitor the physical condition of soldiers.

 

[Wrought]

Personally I think the first true power armour deployment in the real world will be in the form of power armoured troops riding quadruped mounts.

Currently the key limiting factor for true power armour is in making a power source compact enough. The mount side steps that issue by allowing you to use the mount to carry the primary power source, with the power armour itself only needing a secondary power source that only needs to last for a few hours instead of days or weeks.

The mounts also solves the speed problem with power armour, as slow prodding suits will get absolutely obliterated by ATGMs and FPVs.

But sadly, in the world of FPVs, power armour might become obsolete before its even developed, as no level of protecting such power could realistically provide would be enough to protect against FPVs with shaped charge warheads.

What is the benefit of using fancy new robo-horses instead of regular old vehicles? IFVs, APCs, or even ATVs if you want individual transportation. Why does power armour need quadrupeds instead of wheels or tracks? Sounds like a solution in search of a problem.

On a lighter note, I found this Pakistani podcast on the parade. Don't take it too seriously, but they are obviously window shopping.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[latenlazy]

What is the benefit of using fancy new robo-horses instead of regular old vehicles? IFVs, APCs, or even ATVs if you want individual transportation. Why does power armour need quadrupeds instead of wheels or tracks? Sounds like a solution in search of a problem.

On a lighter note, I found this Pakistani podcast on the parade. Don't take it too seriously, but they are obviously window shopping.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Probably quieter and more terrain flexibility to go with quadrupeds. Might also be more agile though not sure if that will matter so much.

 

[Wrought]

Probably quieter and more terrain flexibility to go with quadrupeds. Might also be more agile though not sure if that will matter so much.

I'm not saying quadruped platforms are inherently useless; they are clearly in use today. I'm questioning why he is pairing it specifically with power armour to the extent that it constitutes the "first real deployment."

I would expect quadrupeds to develop in parallel with power armour, and be deployed without any particular connection between them.

 

[plawolf]

What is the benefit of using fancy new robo-horses instead of regular old vehicles? IFVs, APCs, or even ATVs if you want individual transportation. Why does power armour need quadrupeds instead of wheels or tracks? Sounds like a solution in search of a problem.

A multitude of reasons.

Putting a bunch of power armoured troops into one vehicle just makes that one vehicle a massive priority target for opfor. That holds true even after your troops dismount since that vehicle is also their primary power source, so taking that out drastically reduces your power armours field endurance.

With the power source limitation in mind, putting your primary power source in vehicles means your troops need to regularly return to said vehicle and sit in the crew bays and recharge, so you need to either put your vehicles closer to the contact line, thereby increasing the risks to said vehicles, or have your power armoured troops spend a significant proportion of their time ferrying back and forth. With mounts, they can do 90% of combat ops mounted, including combat engagements, and only dismount for specific tasks like clearing small buildings. With mounts, you can also bring spares for redundancy, and depending on how much you want to spend on the mounts, those could easily be combat UAGVs in their own rights, just like a much bigger, more advanced robot dog, so your section could easily dismount and basically double its effective combatants.

You can make the mounts wheeled or tracked, but that won’t provide the versatility of legs, especially in complex terrain such as forests and shell pocked roads and bombed out buildings and minefields etc. Even in urban combat legs holds a significant advantage over other forms of locomotion since cities are designed for legs.

I could go on, but I think you get the point.

 

[Wrought]

A multitude of reasons.

Putting a bunch of power armoured troops into one vehicle just makes that one vehicle a massive priority target for opfor. That holds true even after your troops dismount since that vehicle is also their primary power source, so taking that out drastically reduces your power armours field endurance.

With the power source limitation in mind, putting your primary power source in vehicles means your troops need to regularly return to said vehicle and sit in the crew bays and recharge, so you need to either put your vehicles closer to the contact line, thereby increasing the risks to said vehicles, or have your power armoured troops spend a significant proportion of their time ferrying back and forth. With mounts, they can do 90% of combat ops mounted, including combat engagements, and only dismount for specific tasks like clearing small buildings. With mounts, you can also bring spares for redundancy, and depending on how much you want to spend on the mounts, those could easily be combat UAGVs in their own rights, just like a much bigger, more advanced robot dog, so your section could easily dismount and basically double its effective combatants.

You can make the mounts wheeled or tracked, but that won’t provide the versatility of legs, especially in complex terrain such as forests and shell pocked roads and bombed out buildings and minefields etc. Even in urban combat legs holds a significant advantage over other forms of locomotion since cities are designed for legs.

I could go on, but I think you get the point.

Either the mounts are small and nimble enough for individual combat (doubling effectiveness), or they are large and bulky enough to carry excess energy (primary power source). In the former case, you are doubling the number of consumers which need recharging; in the latter, you are exposing support assets to frontline hazards. Obviously you can try to split the difference with various compromises (like an IFV), but going from your baseline assumption of power-hungry assets which need frequent charging—which is where this whole idea of mounts is coming from—I don't see how this helps you. And if your mounts don't need to make that tradeoff, then you don't need mounts in the first place.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.