ForumsWEPRWhat will happen when the world's armies run out of oil?

77 7256
Masterforger
offline
Masterforger
1,829 posts
1,120

I've been pondering this question for a while. Title says it all. What will happen when there is no oil for the world's militaries? I mean an effective lack of oil, where nothing can be run, and there are no reserves, and no secret caches to be found. No oil, period.

I especially wonder what will happen to the air forces and navies.

  • 77 Replies
thepunisher93
offline
thepunisher93
1,830 posts
415

Also US army was so afraid of RPG-29 that they did not let Iraqi Army buy it, fearing they might fall in hands of opposition.
See wikipedia for source.

314d1
offline
314d1
3,857 posts
0

How about we all scrap our militaries and use the remaining oil on something useful, like helping to develop third world countries?


Wait, you are saying that if we all run out of oil, we should ignore our own needs (Which left untreated would be crisis) and help someone who would be completely unchanged from the oil thing? Who we don't help much anyway?

You do not need to achieve jack in the box effect.
All you need is to immobilise it.


There are three kinds of tank kills. Movement kill, which immobilizes it, weapon kill, which makes it so it can't shoot any more, or total kill, which wipes it out. The last one is the hardest.

The tanks ARE vulnerable to infantry fire. You are not going to have a guy standing across from a tank charging at him and him breaking thew it in one hit, of course, but with proper strategy a group of people with proper weapons can take down a tank. Like Punisher said, they are still vulnerable to movement kill by breaking the tracts, as well as a group of people with modern weapons could take down the tank if they fire from an area where the armor was weak, such as on the roof from the building, or from under it with an anti-tank mine. We wouldn't be invincible, but we would have a huge advantage.
EnigmaX
offline
EnigmaX
101 posts
30

It's not civility, its poking your nose where you should not.
God! you are acting like I killed someone.


This is a public forum, is it not? Do I not have the right then, to read public messages in said forum?

Besides, what are you going to actually do about it? Put me in the corner for chastising you?

You do not need to achieve jack in the box effect.
All you need is to immobilise it.


To achieve a tangible military end, you do need to destroy the tank. Immobilizing it simply takes it out of the fight for a few weeks, and a new one takes its place.

Also US army was so afraid of RPG-29 that they did not let Iraqi Army buy it, fearing they might fall in hands of opposition.
See wikipedia for source.


Perhaps its because theres a large number of lighter vehicles that could be significantly damaged by a tandem warhead? Or perhaps due to the insurgent practise of using RPGs as an anti personel weapon?

The tanks ARE vulnerable to infantry fire. You are not going to have a guy standing across from a tank charging at him and him breaking thew it in one hit, of course, but with proper strategy a group of people with proper weapons can take down a tank. Like Punisher said, they are still vulnerable to movement kill by breaking the tracts, as well as a group of people with modern weapons could take down the tank if they fire from an area where the armor was weak, such as on the roof from the building, or from under it with an anti-tank mine. We wouldn't be invincible, but we would have a huge advantage.


Tank doctrine since the 1940s, as pioneered by the Third Reich, is to have mechanized infantry in support of the tanks. In the anti-insurgency platform currently being used in Afghanistan and which was used in Iraq was to either have dismounted infantry or infantry in Strykers/Humvees/APC being supported by tanks. The practice was that the infantry could act more fluidly to protect the tanks, and the tanks could serve as a heavily protected, highly powerful weapons platform to take out hard targets. In short, its a symbiotic relationship with each protecting the other.

An infantryman's best hope of getting a 'kill' is either a mobility kill or a weapons kill. The tracks are only protected by a skirt and ERA, so its simplest to knock of a track or damage a guide wheel. The downside is that most mobility kills can be repaired in the field, so its only a short term loss. A weapons kill would directly affect the tank's ability to wage war, but unless coupled with a mobility kill, then the tank can withdraw to be repaired. Repairing the weapons systems would likely mean that the tank would have to be withdrawn from service, but armored units actually arrive in country with more tanks than they actually need because tanks are reguarlly rotated out for repairs for normal wear and tear.

To truly kill the tank, you need to ignite and cause the premature detonation of the main gun's rounds, which means you have to penetrate the armor and do so with enough force to do so. On modern MBTs, the only reliable way to do this is with either DU or Tungsten penetrators, which would mean tank on tank combat between two regular and well funded forces.

So the US doesnt have a huge advantage. It has a massive one thats almost unfair.
EnigmaX
offline
EnigmaX
101 posts
30

Have had been it a face to face talk, I could have broken your jaw.
But you are right I can't do anything about it here, so you can do anything from behind this electronic curtain.


The fact that you have to resort to worthless threats instead of engaging me in the field of intellectual battle is rather pathetic, and just shows your inability to actually engage in any form of civil activity. You should leave now, while you can still pretend to have some vestige of dignity.


Then why did not they ban rpg7, at4, m79 and spg9?


Because the RPG-7 is a joke, the US uses the AT4-CS, the M79 isnt an effective anti-atmor weapon, and the SPG-9 isnt man-portable, and thus isnt effective on a combat patrol without vehicular transport.

I have a sneaking suspision that if you actually looked into the weapons systems you listed, you'd be able to make a real rebuttal.

You forgot that we are not talking about afghanistan or Iraq, we are talking about an all out war rather than insurgency or guerrilla warfare.
and an all out war is not like hit and run, its like hit and capitalize.


Since you were listing infantry anti-tank weapons, I think it would make sense for me to assume such weapon would be used accordingly, don't you think?

But lets look back at the last time the M1A1Abrams engaged ammassed tank forces. Desert Storm: A1s engaged Iraqi tanks from over 2000 yards out. Which means that the A1s were getting kills from distances the Iraqi tanks could not engage at. And so the Iraqi Tanks became Iraqi Coffins.
Masterforger
offline
Masterforger
1,829 posts
1,120

a) I don't threaten anyone.
b)If I don't leave now what you gonna do about it.
c) you and intellectual? Muhahahahha!


A) Yes, you did threaten him, uselessly I might add
B) Remember to press "Space" in between lettered brackets, and I want you gone as well, you're polluting my thread with stupidity, lack of ability to offer constructive views, and completely wasting other poster's time.
C) He would appear to be smarter then you, considering you failed to capitalize after the bracket.

Now, get out. This isn't a debate on effective weaponry, it's a debate on what will happen once the militaries, and NOT JUST THE U.S. run out of oil.
Masterforger
offline
Masterforger
1,829 posts
1,120

Both of your posts are off-topic. Get out. You have no good reason being here, you are incapable of effectively debating, and you seem to attack persons, rather then their points. Leave. Now.

EnigmaX
offline
EnigmaX
101 posts
30


a) I don't threaten anyone.
b)If I don't leave now what you gonna do about it.
c) you and intellectual? Muhahahahha!


A) You said you would break my jaw. Open and shut from a legal standpoint.
B) I can actually contact a moderator, since threats of severe physical harm and mental duress are against this site's Terms of Aggreement.
C) Certainly, especially when compared to you.

prove it as a joke.


Effective range of a mere 200 meters, highly inaccurate and inconsistent warheads, and the fact that its weak tandem warhead has trouble penetrating even the lightest armor. Not tomention its easy countered by birdcage armor.

A joke; a gag; a fail.

Ofcourse they lost
they had t54 and 62 and chinese copies of them.


They also had T-72s and BMP-1s. But you missed my point entirely: The Iraqis lost WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO RETURN FIRE.

From the Desert Storm wiki page:

The Iraqis failed to find an effective countermeasure to the thermal sights and sabot rounds used by the Coalition tanks. This equipment enabled them to engage and destroy Iraqi tanks from more than three times the range that Iraqi tanks could engage coalition tanks. The Iraqi crews used old, cheap steel penetrators against the advanced Chobham Armour of the U.S. and British tanks, with ineffective results.

Which some how you guys interpreted as
"I'm gonna chop your head off."
or something.
You two should get your eyes checked.
as for as polluting your thread, who started it?


Actually, you said you would "break my jaw," which is a rather significant bodily injury. So I'll check my eyes when you check your immaturity at the door.

So in short, I expect you'll be hearing from a moderator in the near future. Because "thepinished93", you now cease to amuse me.
thewolf52
offline
thewolf52
28 posts
20

First of all #Enigmax and #thepunisher93
You two are fighting on a pointless and worthless thing, this is not the place to fight over it.
Secondly, you both are wrong, #thepunisher93 it is not a nice thing to threaten others.
#Enigmax from where I see it, it seems that as punisher puts it, you are poking you nose where it does not belong.
It seems to me that you two have some previous bad blood.
Now back to topic at hand,
If the world armies run out of oil, then in short run, only nations with nuclear fueled ships and etc etc will have the huge advantage.

thewolf52
offline
thewolf52
28 posts
20

First of all #Enigmax and #thepunisher93
You two are fighting on a pointless and worthless thing, this is not the place to fight over it.
Secondly, you both are wrong, #thepunisher93 it is not a nice thing to threaten others.
#Enigmax from where I see it, it seems that as punisher puts it, you are poking you nose where it does not belong.
It seems to me that you two have some previous bad blood.
Now back to topic at hand,
If the world armies run out of oil, then in short run, only nations with nuclear fueled ships and etc etc will have the huge advantage.

thepunisher93
offline
thepunisher93
1,830 posts
415
EnigmaX
offline
EnigmaX
101 posts
30

1) Thats an insurgent propaganda video, and thus your point is invalid.

2) Some of the stills in the montage weren't even of Abrams, and some were of the same vehicle.

3) The US destroys a damaged tank if it's too challenging to withdraw it. Which is another reason why that video is invalid: the insurgent could have just as easily taken a photo after the tank was destroyed by friendly forces.

Heres a link, which I suggest you read. Yahoo answers, but highly informative none the less, especially if you know nothing: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090325121120AAArsDg

thepunisher93
offline
thepunisher93
1,830 posts
415

Yes I have read it,
and it negates your implied point that M1abrams are invincible.
They are not.

EnigmaX
offline
EnigmaX
101 posts
30

When have I said they were invincible? On page three I said:


Short of DU penetrators and airborne munitions, the best an infantryman can hope to do is disable the tank. The Abrams has a stellar record in survivability, and another stellar record in crew survivability should the armor be compromised. And when you consider that A2s are being upgraded with TUSK, and that the A3 is due to come out in 2017, the Abrams will take just about anything you throw at it, and then it will run over you.

Are they invinvible? No. Are they incredibly hard to destroy? Yes.

thepunisher93
offline
thepunisher93
1,830 posts
415

When have I said they were invincible? On page three I said:

Short of DU penetrators and airborne munitions, the best an infantryman can hope to do is disable the tank. The Abrams has a stellar record in survivability, and another stellar record in crew survivability should the armor be compromised. And when you consider that A2s are being upgraded with TUSK, and that the A3 is due to come out in 2017, the Abrams will take just about anything you throw at it, and then it will run over you.

Are they invinvible? No. Are they incredibly hard to destroy? Yes.

That is why I used word "implied"
But a large enough IED can harm them as your yahoo source says.
_Spaz_
offline
_Spaz_
143 posts
200

It will be like that show "Revolution" that just came out XD

Showing 31-45 of 77