"Is newer and more advanced always better?" Topic

I think we all have noticed that armies around the world have become smaller. Many European armies have shrunk to almost nothing. Same with other countries around the world. Military hardware have become very expensive per unit.

but is newer and more advanced always better?

When it comes to certain weapons systems it is true, I would say that for fighter aircraft unless you the latest, you might as well have none at all (if your most likely opponent has modern fighters of course)

The same might apply to MBT:s. T55s and M48s are almost no threat to a modern MBT. But they are all hideously expensive.

But when it comes to "support" vehicles is it the same?

is a modern Blackhawk really that superior to a Huey? Especially if the price is factored in? Isn't it better with four "old" helicopters than "one modern"?

isnt quantity a quality of its own? Does modern, expensive transport helis deliver troops so much better than old helis?

Kind of the same with old APC:s, are the so much worse than modern ones?

Why does new always mean so much more expensive?

I would rather have 100 old transport helis (lets say Mi8) than 20 super modern ones. accounting for maintenance and battle losses and damage, 100 helis can fly much longer than 20 modern ones.

So why not build modern but simple vehicles for a cheap price for roles where it it not necessary with the latest high tech?

Jeeps…or Land Rovers! Blame the Industry… but they need orders. Some guys just make do with whatever they can get!
'Hit It With A Hammer'doesn't 'sell' for manufacturers… when procurers are on 'expenses'!

Curious? What do actual users of Jeeps / Land Rovers Actually think of 40s / 50s / 60s variants? Compared to 'Modern'?
Obviously NOT comfort! But to DO the Biz?

You see the vids for MEGAbucks 'Spaecial Forces' lights… but same job WAS done on OLD kit!

Clarke's "Superiority" story?

Part of the issue is manufacturing. If I create a decent transport truck that can be kept running for 40 years, then I'll supply the demand in ten years. How do I stay in business for the next 30 years when no one is ordering my decent transport? I have to come up with a "better" transport to sell.

Comparing the UH-1D with the UH-60M, we find that the old Huey has a bigger(!) lift capacity of 14 troops at 3880lbs, compared to 11 & 2640lbs in the UH-60. However, the biggest difference is that the UH-60 can do it at a max speed of 183mph (average 175mph), whereas the UH-1 can only do 135mph (average 125mph). If your objective is to dead lift cargo, the Huey is clearly superior. But if you want to get there the fastest, the UH-60 clearly beats it out.

Even though the Huey has a larger troop capacity, if you're trying to keep your squads together in airmobile operations, the 3 extra dudes on the Huey are less important. The increased speed of the Blackhawk means you can deliver your troops at a higher, faster tempo. I think for airmobile operations there's not much of a contest.

Of course this analysis counts only for the US. If you have access to Mi-8/14s then the calculus will be different.

Damon.

but is newer and more advanced always better?

Not necessarily.

And I've always like this quote from General Patton: "Weapons change, but man who uses them, changes not at all. To win battles you do not beat weapons — you beat the soul of enemy man…"

Now a days weapon systems are sometimes so expensive that countries cannot afford them. My theory is that it is better to have cheap working systems than none at all for some missions.

NOT where technology is important such as fighters as a cheap fighter is just cannon fodder.

But cheap where the unit are not designed to "come in contact with the enemy" such as APC:s or transports. My reasoning is that a cheap APC or helicopter is better than a super advanced one you cannot afford.

But no one seems to manufacture those?

I think there are plenty of cheap APCs & even IFVs being churned out by China & Russia. How much does a BTR-80A cost these days, compared to a Bradley or a Puma?

Just googled: Average recent cost of a BTR-80A $663,000. USD Average cost of a Bradley $3 USDmil. So if you are on a budget, you can get a reasonably effective APC with some decent support/offensive capabilities in the BTR, which to be frank probably works perfectly fine for much of the world & the threats they have to face.

Damon.

Those on a budget don't need APCs. They use something much more indestructible…

old Toyota pickups!

YouTube link

wow. I just sold my Toyota Tundra with 320,000 miles on it. So I believe it would survive most of those 'tests'. Floored by the salt water bath, though.

Generally newer is better. As some examples were posted here, e.g. UH-1s vs UH-60s(been there … done that). That being said keeping up with hi-tech to stay ahead of your hi-tech enemy is always a good standard.

Regardless a weapon system is only as good as the crew/trooper behind it with capable leadership …

Comparing the UH-1D with the UH-60M, we find that the old Huey has a bigger(!) lift capacity of 14 troops at 3880lbs, compared to 11 & 2640lbs in the UH-60. However, the biggest difference is that the UH-60 can do it at a max speed of 183mph (average 175mph), whereas the UH-1 can only do 135mph (average 125mph). If your objective is to dead lift cargo, the Huey is clearly superior. But if you want to get there the fastest, the UH-60 clearly beats it out.

That has not been my experience … being a Rifle Plt Ldr and Air Ops officer in the 101, '80-'83.

A UH-1, based on weather conditions, may only carry 6-8 PAXs. Never have heard of 14 in a UH-1 … cause it just can't be done. Even including the crew.

A UH-60 was designed to carry an entire Squad of 11 + crew. And that was generally the way it was done. Now if you take the seats out you can fit 23 + the crew.

As well as the UH-60 is faster under any conditions than a UH-1.

I know a UH-60 can and does lift more "dead weight" than a UH-1. I was in the 101 when we transitioned from UH-1s to UH-60s. As I said I was an Air Ops Ofc. We had to update SOPs, etc. As the UH-60 is clearly superior to a UH-1 on all accounts.

The stats on this UH-1 link is incorrect – link

The stats on this UH-60 link are correct – link

I know UH-1 & UH-60 pilots … you couldn't fit 14 ARVN in a UH-1.

Kind of the same with old APC:s, are the so much worse than modern ones?

I was a Mech Co. Cdr, with M113s, '87-'89. The M113 is very fragile. We had to sand bag it to increase survivability. You would dismount every time it was tactically feasible. It is an APC not IFV like the M2 Bradley. The M2 was better armored and armed than the M113 by a long shot.

M113 – M2 .50 cal & M47 Dragon[but had to be mounted, usually carried by a Grunt]

M2 – 25mm chain gun & TOWs + M240 MG

The only place the M113 was superior was it could carry 11 with 9 of those being dismounts.

The M2 could carry 9, but only 6 dismounts …

But again M113 APC vs. M2 IFV …

When it comes down to cost … If it will save some of my troops lives and make it easier to kill the enemy … I'm all for it.

What really kills advanced modern systems is that they're prohibitively expensive to acquire and operate.

And numbers counts especially when it comes to be able to to:

a.) Maintaining geographic presence – 183 F-22s can be in far fewer geographic locations than 750 F-15s.

b.) Sustaining losses.

c.) Maintaining high tempo operations – even if you're not suffering combat losses, equipment is being worn out.

d.) Maintaining economies of scale for production and sustainment which keeps per unit cost down.

e.) Sustainment levels under austere conditions – as proven in Syria or Afghanistan, the old "primitive" Soviet junk be it T-55/-62 or Mi-8/17 just keeps going as its rugged and built to be maintained by low skilled troops.

Meanwhile modern advanced system are quickly rendered inoperable by wear and tear and logistics are harder to sustain due to complexity.

And note those T-55/-62s and Mi-8/17 aren't operating in their 1960s/70s configurations – they've actually been modernised to some degree eg ERA and targeting systems.

f.) Training requirements – as noted as T-55 or Mi-17 doesn't require same level of advanced training as say an M1A3 Abrams or UH-60.

So under war time conditions you can train replacement crews a lot quicker.

g.) Loss replacement – simpler gear can be replaced more quickly than advanced equipment especially with things like electronics. Much modern equipment takes 3 or more years to deliver because things like AESA radars are very complicated and take time to manufacture.

The western advanced model is good for low intensity, low attrition warfare eg v Iraq or Libya or Serbia.

The cheap and nasty Russian/Chinese model is more sustainable in high intensity warfare.

In the end the lesson learned from WWII stand – T-34/Shermans were war winners for all the above reasons despite being less advanced than Tigers/Panthers

Note cheap doesn't mean inefficient/ineffective – eg Chinese/ Russian mass ballistic/cruise missile swarms are designed to penetrate advanced air defences which can only be acquired in limited numbers.

In fact Israel was struggling with volume of cheap Palestinian attacks from Gaza. Analysts have already determined if Hezbollah started lobbing missiles as well, the Israeli defences would have been overwhelmed.

The other example is Azerbaijan-Armenia – Armenia had acquired small numbers of expensive advanced air defences to supplement it's older fleet which was upgraded.

The Azeris brought cheap loitering munitions and cheap Turkish drones and coupled them with old fashioned cheap artillery which literally overcame the Armenians air defences (as well as fortifications, terrain advantage and troop quality advantage). In the end the advanced systems were too few in numbers to make a difference and were in the end hunted themselves.

The Americans are actually late to the party here – American drones have been getting ever more expensive and complicated when the big success story is cheap Turkish Bayraktar TB2. The Europeans and western allied North Asians aren't even here.

Often better? – yes
Always better? – no

Look at the Fairey Swordfish and Albacore for an example.

Of the Dauntless being replaced by the Helldiver

What really kills advanced modern systems is that they're prohibitively expensive to acquire and operate.

Yes but if the gov't can afford it … as I posted, When it comes down to cost … If it will save some of my troops lives and make it easier to kill the enemy … I'm all for it.

And numbers counts especially when it comes to be able to to:

Yes as I have frequently have posted … in many cases … numbers do count.

Often better? – yes
Always better? – no

Yes as I said, generally new is better. Again from practical experience, etc. As I pointed out in my posts about UH-1 vs UH-60s & M113 APC compared to M2 Brad IFV …

There are other examples out there of course …

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

'Nuff said.

Still Curious? Talking about Jeep / Land Rover.If in the Field… would something 'cheap' but working… or could be 'bashed' to make it work… be preferable to Fast, but horrendously expensive 'design Concepts' from 'Defence Manufacturers'?
Just look at what could be stuck on a Jeep / Land Rover!

Used both the old M151 Jeep and then the HMWWV … the Hummer was better but bigger too. However, if either hit a mine/IED … it wouldn't be pretty. As we know from the news footage.

HMWWW was deployed in ways it never should have been. It's just a utility vehicle not a COIN AFV!

Big problem was US had forgotten all the lessons of Vietnam (remember armoured M35 gun trucks) and ignored valuable lessons from fighting in Africa (MRAPs were first used by Rhodesia and South Africa) and then had to relearn them.

Yes but if the gov't can afford it … as I posted, When it comes down to cost … If it will save some of my troops lives and make it easier to kill the enemy … I'm all for it.

Agreed but even the US is struggling to buy the toys though eg F-22 or Zummwalt or Seawolf.

Seawolf is probably the best attack sub ever built but there's only 3 of them. Hardly a war winning capability.

Having sufficient force to maintain momentum will save more lives than having an expensive silver bullet fleet.

To put it simply, the Germans managed to thrash France in 5 weeks because they had sufficient force even if a lot of it was obsolete (Panzer I and IIs while the Panzer 35(t) was unreliable).

If they'd gone to war with 500 Tigers instead of 2,500 Panzer I/II/III/IV/35(t)/38(t), they would have not had the successes they did.

HMWWW was deployed in ways it never should have been. It's just a utility vehicle not a COIN AFV!

Yes but we know you go to war with the army you have. You use what ya got. Too bad they didn't get MRAPs sooner. IIRC they could have been deployed sooner if someone in DC, etc., pushed it. But they didn't have any one riding in a combat zone in HMWWV. But I could be wrong?

(remember armoured M35 gun trucks)

Yes, I know some guys in my Mil Ofr Assoc., etc. who commanded some of those gun trucks. We were still using the M35 when I got in the Army and when I got out.

They later made HEMTT Guntrucks too. They are big SOBs. We got them a few years before I got out. But never were converted to Guntrucks until they got to Iraq IIRC.

Agreed but even the US is struggling to buy the toys

As Plt Ldr '80-'82, in the 101, the Company was short an entire Rifle Plt.

We were short an 81mm Mortar PL much of the time. So the Co. Cdr would have me turn my Plt over to my P/SGT. He was in Vietnam, there was nothing to worry about. And I lead the mortars for awhile. We were all trained to use mortars at Inf Ofc Basic.

We had no SAWs, we would designate one of troop carrying an M16. Was issued a "close pin" bipod. He/they were now SAW gunners.

IIRC we got SAWs when I got to the 2ID in the ROK, in '84. So I was happy about that. But our Armored Recovery Vehicles, M578s & M88s. The Crews still had some M3 Grease Guns. Yes, like the ones in WWII.

When I returned to CONUS in '86, and took command of an M113 Mech Co. Did not have ACAV turrets, we'd get them when we were deployed we told.

Authorized 34 NVGS had 5 which at any give time 1 or 2 were down.

No ammo vests for my M203 Gunners.

All my M60s were rebuilds prone to jamming …

The 101 and then later that Mech Hvy Bde both were part of the 18th Airborne Corps, RDF units … So … you work with what you got …

Geez Legion, that sounds like one helluva third world force! :D

And that was in the good times when the money was rolling in and you could still buy some cheap kit and had economies of scale.

Though my point was that the ultra advanced stuff may be awesome but if you only have it in really, really small numbers and not much else then it's largely worthless.

Yep … you work with what you got ! 😁😀

Someone was getting the $ … but as usual it was not the Grunts ! 😏

That's what Eisenhower warned the US about.

You can pump billions into defence and the troops are still poorly equipped yet some Lockheed or Raytheon executive has just brought another tax payer funded mansion.

Yes, the Military-Industrial Complex. But in some cases my Raytheon stock makes me a little $ …😎😀

And as we know it is not only big business that buy another mansion … E.g. many elected & appointed members of our Gov't do. Some are known to have as many as 4 house all over the country.

And don't forget BLM. That now stands for Buy Large Mansions … Well at least for their Marxist leadership.

About the Helldiver, at least it was replaced by the Skyraider, and the latter was surely better!
The problem, expecially when ther's a LOT of money available, is that too often the weapon systems are overloaded, they have to had all the new tecnologies incorporated, also when they aren't fully tested, there all the troubles we have to deal with (F35 and similar)the A10, as CAS, was so succesful because it was build exploiting reliable tech, and the (bloody) lessons of the 'Nam.

In here recently the US navy went for Tomcats not the most upto date for cost reasons.

I have never heard of that ? Did I miss-read something, etc. ?

UshCha,

F-14 Tomcats were retired and replaced by F/A-18E/F Super Hornet which was indeed cheaper to acquire and maintain but not as capable especially in role of fleet defence or in terms of range.

Yes, and despite the growing menace of China's subs, replaced S3 Vikings with helos. I hope only that some "bright" mind won't replace the E-2c with something more "economical"

F-14 Tomcats were retired and replaced by F/A-18E/F Super Hornet

That is what I thought … and it happened a while back, IIRC, Iran was using them for awhile but I think no longer.

hope only that some "bright" mind won't replace

Well they have not replaced the US ARMY's gear with horses & bolt action rifles … yet …