Jump to content

IMHO

Members
  • Content Count

    691
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    IMHO got a reaction from Sgt.Squarehead in Stupendous ammo dump explosion at Krasnoyarsk   
    Hezbollah came to rule in Lebanon through a solid win in democratic parliamentary elections though it looks like I'm arguing with "Stars and Stripes" editorial
  2. Like
    IMHO got a reaction from MikeyD in Stupendous ammo dump explosion at Krasnoyarsk   
    Hezbollah came to rule in Lebanon through a solid win in democratic parliamentary elections though it looks like I'm arguing with "Stars and Stripes" editorial
  3. Like
    IMHO got a reaction from IanL in Stupendous ammo dump explosion at Krasnoyarsk   
    What do you mean "covered by security provisions"?
    Seems like we're speaking different languages. The Treaty is the ban on nuclear tests PLUS the verification mechanism to prove the signatories do no conduct banned test covertly. So yes, you're right testing nuclear rocket engine is not prohibited but the Treaty contains the verification mechanism in the form of monitoring stations to collect data to ensure this one was a rocket engine test and not a A-bomb's. Monitoring stations network surely provide information of intelligence value but that's EXACTLY why they exist. The Treaty does not ban the collection of intelligence information - on the contrary it facilitates it. Like Open Skies treaty exists to provides a legal framework to collect intelligence data not to ban it.
  4. Like
    IMHO got a reaction from IanL in Stupendous ammo dump explosion at Krasnoyarsk   
    The problem is this situation is EXACTLY what is covered by the Treaty. Explosion, release of radioactive materials - the monitoring stations network was exactly created to verify events like this do not represent over-critical nuclear tests. So invoking this article is kinda lame IMO.
  5. Upvote
    IMHO got a reaction from AtheistDane in Recent combat vids from Ukraine   
    Just to make it clear - there was no offense to the Ukrainian border guards. 95+32=127 Let's be realistic 127 people that make up a full compliment cannot somehow clandestinely penetrate a full encirclement of such a small territory of the base. There was an agreement they may leave and go to the Ukrainian-controlled territory. Can you substantiate SBU/ZSU theory with the proofs dated to those times? There's no ZSU on the video and I have Alexander Geraschenko - an advisor to the Ukrainian Minister of Defense saying on camera the bombing related to the border guards base. Just as you said initially. https://rutube.ru/video/196b6fc4a2ee62f8c49e2187d3be4b75/  (01:17)
    PS Or may be we just close this line of discussion? You stated your position, I stated mine - it's all too pointless to further this on.
  6. Upvote
    IMHO got a reaction from AtheistDane in Recent combat vids from Ukraine   
    Western vs. Eastern Ukraine - they hated the guts of each other long before the open conflict. Western Ukraine is under-developed, agrarian, low income, low education level, the populace is either tending the crops or working on menial jobs in other countries. Eastern Ukraine - lots of industry, higher education necessary for industry jobs, and income was times higher than in Western Ukraine. Similar to Northern and Southern Italy - there's no love lost between those two also - just way more open. And don't take me wrong it's not just Westerners hated Easterners, an average Eastern Ukrainian Joe from the street did consider himself superior to Westerners just as well.
  7. Upvote
    IMHO got a reaction from AtheistDane in Recent combat vids from Ukraine   
    Correct, the official version voiced by Ukrainian side was that the bombing was in connection with the border guards base that was surrounded and in lock down. The base was in the suburbs of Luhansk. Flying so low one can hardly mistake it for the very center of civilian city. Here's the video showing how the base looked like - one can judge for oneself if it looks like the center of the city from the first video. So Western Ukrainian side bombed the center of Luhansk. What Luhansk side did after they overrun the border guards base? They just let those guardsmen who didn't want to serve in local militia to pass to Ukraine unharmed.  
  8. Upvote
    IMHO got a reaction from AtheistDane in Recent combat vids from Ukraine   
    There was an anniversary of Luhansk bombing not so long ago. It might be enlightening on how deep the conflict between East and West of Ukraine goes. Western Ukrainian Su-25 bombs the very civilian center of Eastern city of Luhansk right in the middle of the day. 02.06.2014, there's no L/DNR yet Ukrainian Army was doing Shock and Awe against civilian population just in case.
    Surveillance camera (bombing starts at 01:36)
    View from the ground
    Then-advisor to the Minister of Defense of Ukraine comments on the bombing. He confirms the bombing was done by Ukrainian plane and offers no excuse, just says it: "It was one slight movement of pilot's hand that led to negative consequences..." Says there's no reason to blame the pilot.
    https://rutube.ru/video/196b6fc4a2ee62f8c49e2187d3be4b75/ (01:17)
  9. Like
    IMHO got a reaction from Splinty in 30mm Strykers...get some   
    The general opinion is 25mm Bushmaster is less than effective against the front of BMP-3. Plain vanilla LAV-25 is outdated. LAV-25 and Strykers are different platforms. Why have the pain of supporting two platforms within one unit anyway?
  10. Like
    IMHO got a reaction from Zveroboy1 in How accurate *is* CMBS?   
    So we leave this thread for heated discussions and I'll make another one for numbers? 
    @Rinaldi, it was not a military operation at all. Local warlord raised Arab militia for a raid against Kurdish controlled installations and bribed or promised mountains of gold to some Russian PMCs to join in. Russian military command in Syria didn't have a clue what was in the works. So this ragtag party went about their business having done no proper reconnaissance, without air support and having just one howitzer of 30s as an artillery support. This Russian PMC is mostly staffed with wanna-be-tough freaks that served in the Army some decades ago. They are not equipped to the Russian Army standards of today - no vests, no night vision, almost no optics and small arms produced in 60s. Against US reconnaissance drones and full bunch of air support in the form of AH-64s, F-15s (if I'm not mistaken) and AC-130. PMC's low level commanders intentionally didn't speak to Russian HQ in Syria. Have they done so they would have been immediately sent home at best since Russian HQ in Syria could have easily predicted how it would end. They have permanent A-50 coverage of the skies so they would have seen what's coming. When Americans called Russian HQ to ask what the f%ck is going on Russian HQ honestly said they knew nothing and had no idea who's doing this. So the raid party was annihilated. When the truth came out Russian MoD was furious as hell as this meant gross insubordination and a blatant attempt to conduct their own private version of state policy in Syria. The guys in Russia who were looking after this PMC had a swift and painful punishment befell their heads.
    So no, I don't think it's comparable to a proper military operation of the modern Russian Army.
  11. Like
    IMHO got a reaction from General Jack Ripper in Russian army under equipped?   
    ECM took over control of the six drones. Means drones used simple analogue protocol. ECM wouldn't have had time to quickly decode an encrypted control channel. A swarm and an unencrypted exchange do not sit together well.
    Actually, imho, unencrypted comms is what breaks MoD's story of heavy use of a foreign advanced technology. The correct MoD press release should say: "We thought we were fighting brainless camel-f###ers but it turns out they know the math and are able to Goggle things. We weren't prepared for these."
    PS BTW, do you remember an RQ-170 story?... 
  12. Upvote
    IMHO got a reaction from DerKommissar in Russian army under equipped?   
    Just a collection of the day

    RUS SOF PR vid
     
  13. Like
    IMHO got a reaction from DMS in Comparing CMBS to real-life and different sides in CMBS between themselves   
    I believe it would be interesting to discuss how behaviour of CMBS units and equipment compares to their what they demonstrate in real life and how different sides in CMBS match against each other. To keep as far away from useless flame as possible I suggest we argue only quantifiable data that can be traced either to real life sources or comparable in-game datasets.
  14. Upvote
    IMHO got a reaction from LongLeftFlank in Reduction of Ghouta   
  15. Upvote
    IMHO got a reaction from kinophile in Comparing CMBS to real-life and different sides in CMBS between themselves   
    I believe it would be interesting to discuss how behaviour of CMBS units and equipment compares to their what they demonstrate in real life and how different sides in CMBS match against each other. To keep as far away from useless flame as possible I suggest we argue only quantifiable data that can be traced either to real life sources or comparable in-game datasets.
  16. Upvote
    IMHO got a reaction from kinophile in How accurate *is* CMBS?   
    I'm sure we all want an accurate representation of reality. So if you believe I'm wrong in my assessment may be you can offer your logic of calculation and input checkable to the actual specifications or tests. Then we can discuss the numbers instead of who wants what...
  17. Upvote
    IMHO got a reaction from IanL in Comparing CMBS to real-life and different sides in CMBS between themselves   
    Infantry detection test
    Objective: To understand how detection capabilities of US and Russian infantry units match against each other.
    Test setup: 40 isolated lanes of 200m each. Lanes are plain and only grass-covered. TOD is midday, the weather is clear, sunny and dry. On either side of the lane there's a three-man breach team - US and Russian. The teams are veteran, normal motivation and no leadership bonus. Teams are not hiding and facing each other.
    What we track: how much time each team needs to detect AND identify the opponent.
    Graph: Axis X is the number of seconds passed after the start of the test. Axis Y - the number of units detected by this time. 

    Surprisingly RU team is almost as good in detection as US  This is my first take - feels like more tests at larger distances wouldn't hurt 
  18. Like
    IMHO got a reaction from Sgt.Squarehead in Comparing CMBS to real-life and different sides in CMBS between themselves   
    I believe it would be interesting to discuss how behaviour of CMBS units and equipment compares to their what they demonstrate in real life and how different sides in CMBS match against each other. To keep as far away from useless flame as possible I suggest we argue only quantifiable data that can be traced either to real life sources or comparable in-game datasets.
  19. Like
    IMHO reacted to Artkin in Who's winning the tank war?   
    I found this link today: 
    https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/830d70/the_source_bomb_on_modern_tanks_just_dropped/
     
    Which referred me to these two:
    https://cloud.mail.ru/public/FVLe/iUZw87trH
    http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/topic/1395-contemporary-western-tank-rumble/?page=5&tab=comments#comment-124945
     
    Both of these have a ton of information on modern MBT armor, the latter especially. 
  20. Like
    IMHO got a reaction from c3k in Stryker vs Bradley   
    Give me Abrams' 65 tons...
    PS By the way these are pics from standard Russian tank training facilities.
  21. Like
    IMHO got a reaction from LUCASWILLEN05 in Stryker vs Bradley   
    Give me Abrams' 65 tons...
    PS By the way these are pics from standard Russian tank training facilities.
  22. Like
    IMHO reacted to IICptMillerII in Stryker vs Bradley   
    This part is true. 
    This part is not. 
    No to both. 
    Roads, off-roads, it really doesn't matter. Before the Stryker, the Army had two types of forces: very light, and very heavy. Very light forces can be deployed extremely quickly (anywhere in the world with only 24 hours notice when on alert status, etc). The downside of light forces is they have little to no offensive combat power (operationally speaking). Heavy forces take a long time to deploy, generally 3 weeks is the earliest heavy forces can be moved to a new theater. However, heavy forces are where all of the decisive offensive combat power (operationally speaking) lies. 
    During the Cold War, the Army had all of its heavy forces already in country, thus did not have to redeploy them to counter the Soviets. Everything else that happened in the world was essentially left to the light forces to take care of, or at least take care of long enough for the heavy forces to arrive. So, for roughly 45 years, the Army had no issue operating light and heavy forces against the threats they were arrayed against. 
    This changed in the 90s with the fall of the Soviet Union. With new threats popping up in other locations of the globe (Iraq 1991, Bosnia 1990's, etc) it was apparent that the US Army needed to be able to rapidly deploy all of its combat power (both light and heavy) around the world quickly. However, they found they could not do this, because heavy forces are called heavy for a reason. They are hard to strategically relocate, and they have a large logistical tail that must be set in place to keep them functioning as well. (Note: ALL heavy forces, regardless of the country they are from, suffer from this.) 
    Enter the Stryker. The entire idea behind the stryker is to have a 'medium' force. Essentially, light infantry with operational mobility. The stryker as it is excels at this role. It does what heavy and light units both cannot (deploy rapidly while being able to be operationally mobile in theater with a smaller logistics tail than a heavy unit while still packing a tremendous amount of organic firepower). There are other benefits the Stryker brings to the table as well, such as increased C2 capabilities, etc. 
    The point is, the stryker has a specific job to do, and it does very well at its job. No vehicle is perfect. No a stryker isn't great at climbing a mountain off road, but then again neither is a humvee or a tank. Again, the thing has flaws, plenty of them. But the main point is that it achieves its operational (read: most important) goals, and it achieves them very well. 
  23. Like
    IMHO reacted to IICptMillerII in Stryker vs Bradley   
    I understand, I've done the same myself on a number of occasions. 
    The story of the humvee is another rather long one, but I'll try to be brief. 
    It was introduced in the 80's as a logistics vehicle. Essentially, it was designed to ferry commanders around, and bring ammunition to tanks during the night/during a lull in fighting. This is the main reason it had plastic doors and such. Like every military vehicle, someone decided to slap a weapon system on top and used it outside of its main role. Some of this was good, such as the TOW humvee, other ideas weren't so good like sticking a .50 cal on the roof for anything other than close in defense. As a side note example of this, many LMTVs (a purely logistical truck similar to a WWII 2.5 ton truck) have a turret ring with a .50 cal on top. This doesn't mean anyone is riding logistics vehicles into combat. Its meant as a defensive thing. 
    Essentially, light units were never married with the humvee in any real combat role. The closest the humvee came to a combat role was as a TOW carrier in the weapons company of light units. You can see this for yourself in CMSF if you load up a US Army light infantry battalion. All the infantry are dismounted, and the weapons company (and recon element) have humvees. The humvee was never meant to be used as a front line combat vehicle by line infantry in light infantry units. 
    However, when Iraq (and to a much lesser extent) Afghanistan became urban based (again mostly Iraq) counter insurgency operations, the humvee was pressed into service as a patrol vehicle. Similar in concept to a police car. Motorized transport allows you to get places much faster, and carry more gear (ammo, food, water, equipment, etc) than you can on foot. Add in the 120F temperatures and you can see the appeal of not having to walk everywhere. Then of course, the insurgents started targeting the humvees, and then the whole up armor craze began. The humvee was basically used to fill a role that was missing from light/occupation forces in a specific theater. But the humvee was never added to the TO&E of light infantry units (that is, the line infantrymen). For example, if 10th Mountain ( a light infantry division) was deployed to Poland in 2008 after a surprise Russian attack, the infantry would have been dismounted just like in WWII. Any motorized transport would have been non-combat, such as trucks and the like. 
    Light units today (10th Mountain, 101st, 82nd, etc) are all still primarily dismounted infantry. After driving/heloing/parachuting onto the battlefield, they walk everywhere else. 
  24. Like
    IMHO got a reaction from Sgt.Squarehead in Stryker vs Bradley   
    Give me Abrams' 65 tons...
    PS By the way these are pics from standard Russian tank training facilities.
  25. Upvote
    IMHO got a reaction from DerKommissar in Reduction of Ghouta   
×
×
  • Create New...