Jump to content

civdiv

Members
  • Posts

    664
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by civdiv

  1. I am reading this via my Kindle Unlimited subscription. Interesting book and good read; I’d be interested in other’s opinions. Especially interesting is the authors discussion of some rare re-use of captured French vehicles by the 21st Panzer Division. Things like the Somua MCG half-track repurposed as a mobile anti tank gun or rocket launcher, or the P-107 conversion for the 20mm anti aircraft gun. Some of you purists will want this equipment in Combat Mission, or maybe it is already there. The MCG anti tank gun varient looks so much like a German half-track maybe I have already seen it in my readings but did not recognize it as a former French vehicle.

     

     

  2. On 3/20/2022 at 3:36 PM, Erwin said:

    The industrialization article is interesting as it posits that the US helped USSR develop its industry to produce land and air-based weapons (only) as the west wanted USSR to be ready for war with Germany.  The west refused to help USSR with naval technology as that would threaten the west.  As a result, the Soviet navy was useless and hardly ever left its ports (other than subs in the Baltic Sea presumably).

    Especially interesting as the article claims the industrialization was paid for by wheat, which led to famine in the Ukraine.

    Kind of topical right now.

  3. Another fascinating article and no, I cannot guarantee it’s accuracy;

    4th letter from an FSB analyst

    Quote

    Vladimir, good afternoon!

    This is probably the first time that I've been able to write to you in the daytime during a weekday  everything is upside down now.

    Under different circumstance, this information would look like utter nonsense, but right now, I am afraid, this won't be the end of it.

    First, we (FSB) are seriously evaluating a version that the current events of war with Ukraine is a war between the US and China, in which the Americans simply set us up and are using us. Now I'll try to explain succinctly & clearly.

    (This is the new 'nonsensical' working theory that the FSB analysts are being tasked to work on)

    A global clash between the USA and China was unavoidable. After the war started in Ukraine [at least here in this correspondence I don't have to use the term "operation"] the cost of resources has risen globally, especially energy. The main casualty of these events is China and our side (Russia) provided China certain guarantees, which I can personally confirm  that everything will end quickly (invasion of Ukraine). Which is why China has been tolerating the situation. But this was before.

    The American situation is such that owners of the industry and oil drilling are in essence the same corporations, and that helps with the internal balance: They make money on drilling when oil is expensive, and when it's cheap  from industrial development. This is a bit blunt, but it provides the necessary insight into their approach.

    And shales (oil fracking), unlike the classic method (of oil extraction), is easy to stop and start.

    Now the US will make an agreement with Venezuela and Iran. They can buy out Venezuelan light crude with a crazy discount. And the opening of the Iranian oil (market) will obviously be perceived with hostility by Saudi Arabia and UEA. The Yemeni conflict is also relevant here, and a row of other factors which I will ignore for the sake of simplicity. But it all leads to the fact that the US had already made preparations for these negotiations in advance.

    The US has basically set a trap for us, almost analogous to the trap set for Iraq in Kuwait, when Saddam Hussein was being convinced that for a "small conflict (incursion)" there will be no response. He entered Kuwait and "Dessert Storm" began. And that was the beginning of the end of Iraq.

    We were receiving similar signs that the US will not get involved, which has been confirmed from a military perspective. China can absolutely give us a harsh ultimatum to end the war to stabilize the price of oil. If this happens, I don't want to make predictions  it'd be on the horizon of catastrophic events.

    Russia's image is so negative in the eyes of so many countries because of the war, that the US can easily pressure the Europeans to impose sanctions against China in case China decides to maneuver around the current sanctions against Russia (to help Russia). China's high dependence on exports coupled with its dependence on commodity prices would result in a fatal blow if the cost of commodities goes up because their domestic market will disappear (Chinese population can't afford the increased price of goods).

    Not only that, Xi Jing Ping was considering a takeover of Taiwan in autumn  he needs his own small victory to be re-elected for his 3rd term  there's a colossal internal fight between the elites. Now after the events in Ukraine, the window of opportunity (to take Taiwan) has been closed. This gives the US an opportunity to blackmail Xi and also negotiate with his rivals on favorable terms.

    In this instance, it is us (Russia) that set this trap for China through our actions (in Ukraine).

    We won't be able to admit this out loud, even an assessment of scenarios from current conditions is "not entirely appropriate." Hence the desire that the secret becomes open: Yes, this is only a working version, but it exists in our structures (in the FSB).

    Second  the evolution of the current situation.

    Now about our other plans, which go beyond any boundaries of insanity. Sanctions against Russia have reached a level with no precedent in history. The only thing that Putin is right about  this is essentially equivalent to war. The current approach with sanctions leaves Russia without any chances.

    Now the matter may not be limited to threatening Europe  the chance of hostilities, albeit of localized nature, can be considered to be historically high. Ukraine is a monstrously large front, there are smaller fronts. For example, if we were talking about Moldova, the military operations would really be limited to several hours. With the Baltics  several days, but there'd be artillery hits first.

    Actual threats of conventional rocket strikes against Europe [not bluffs] in the event of further sanctions can no longer be dismissed. Supporters of such an approach, who exist among those with influence on the decision, muse that in a sordid case we will simply be crushed by waiting until an internal implosion and collapse from inside (in Russia).

    In addition to the rockets, we have the capability to conduct a massive cyberwar  the internet can be shut down (by Russia inside Russia). Such a possibility exists and it'd be difficult (for the West) to respond symmetrically (since Russia won't have internet anyway).

    And the external war should reduce the internal tension and redirect the aggression outward. However "should"  doesn't mean it'll be so.

    There's also one that is rather realistic [but I can't say it's good] plans to start a massive disinformation campaign that we are prepared for the war and sanctions for years to come: This should pressure the Ukrainians psychologically  "It won't end quickly, better to surrender" and also the West.

    I suppose that various government powers (in Russia) could start pushing their own plans (on how to proceed). That will simply lead to even more chaos (in Russia).

    I won't talk about the economy  it's like discussing the nuances of pacifism while being nuclear-bombed.

    The terror has strengthened  there are no internal instruments to hold the situation inside the country.

    But terror is a complicated and expensive thing  it should become temporary. It's like holding your breath because the air is poisoned: If you can escape the area, then the action is justified. But if you hold your breath for "an hour"  you saved yourself from the poison but

    Systemic decisions with a positive outcome do not exist. There is no Ukrainian political power that we could delegate the authority just for the optics. If we show Yanukovich (former President of Ukraine that was Putin's asset, who dismantled the Ukrainian military pre-2014), it will only expose how bad things really are here. No single strategically important city has been taken in Ukraine. Kherson and Kharkov were considered the most pro-Russian. Pro-Ukrainian protests are not dying down in Kherson despite the presence of our soldiers. In Khrakov things are much worse.

    Just summarizing the gist without getting into the details.

    There is another piece of information that is critical.

    The "Plan for Victory" in the FSB is being painted as such:

    Zelensky will be pressured into signing a fluff peace agreement recognizing Crimea as Russian, and Luhansk- and Donetsk-oblasts will become LDNR. LDNR will be the focus of our negotiators in terms of nuance, etc. But it's just a distraction.

    The key clause would be about demilitarization, which would essentially ban Ukrainian intelligence services, and most importantly counter-intelligence.

    And here our people (FSB) already see the prognosis: Over a number of years, it would be possible for us (FSB) with some minimal help from the GRU (Russian Military Intelligence), to carry out a total cleansing of the socio-political field in Ukraine. And after all this, we could install any government in Kiev.

    With high probability this plan will become dominant for the Kremlin with strategic correction, although the scenario is insane and aggression on other fronts is not being cancelled. In theory, the plan does have potential, but how it will be in practice is unknown. There will be no military victory, only something like this.

    Lots of nuances, but most important  our side will be able to breach such agreements after they're signed anytime, when there's strength to turn the tide. Then it won't be the military but the "black crows" who will be executing the "second phase," arresting those accused of breaking the agreement from the Ukrainian side.

    This scenario is not so crazy like the others, but it is completely contingent on the fact that Kiev can actually be pressured in the negotiations. We are now working the Western contacts at the highest levels  looking for countries who will support our position and to put pressure on Zelensky. It could be another bluff, it could be an analogue of Wenck's army in our current reality. Overall, as I've been saying, the level of chaos here is quite high.

    In economic terms, we are falling and everything is very predictable: the abyss is fervently winking at us.

    We are limited in our ability to verify all data, but consider it important to disclose this information for the purpose of informing of the existing threats to global security.  ! (No to War!)

    END OF TRANSLATION

     

  4. Twitter thread roll up on Ukraine/Russia
     

    This is a great Twitter thread roll up on the Russian failures in Ukraine and Putin’s current dilemma. I do not think this is political, it is more about tactics, decisions, history, mythology, military rivalry and the current military situation. If mods think it is political then lock it up immediately and then folks can still read it.

    Please keep politics out of this.

     

  5. On 2/1/2022 at 12:46 AM, Centurian52 said:

    This sounds perfectly plausible. The main weakness of pistols is that they have a very limited effective range, but sub-50 meters is practically point-blank. Also this is about where it becomes damn near impossible to see anything through a sniper scope (very narrow field of view, so a regular un-scoped rifle would be much better at this range). Although frankly any bolt-action rifle will struggle at this range, which is the big selling point of sub-machineguns.

    Sub 50 meters is not ‘practically point blank’ for someone shooting a pistol and getting shot at. 48 meters is a long pistol shot at about max range against a man sized target. 5-7 meters is point blank, 15 is medium, 25 is long, and 50 is max effective range.

  6. 17 hours ago, Amedeo said:

    I preordered the book on December 11th. It's still listed as out of stock. I hope there will soon be a second print run, it would be a pity if I don't get the book before, well, before WW3 begins in earnest! 😬 Just kidding... about the war, I mean, not about the preorder. 😉

    Amazon? I ordered it over a month after you and it shipped the next day.

  7. 10 hours ago, Jim Storr said:

    Thank you for your advice.  I have seen too much ill-informed or simply wrong comment in blogs to believe that that sort of unthinking, poorly-expressed, shoot-from-the hip criticism should go unanswered.  

    I did not blame anybody.  

    Jim Storr

    Sir, as someone else said somewhere, this forum is like a bunch of guys heading to the bar. Sooner or later someone is going to say something that pisses you off (Aaron Rodgers sucks) but they are not taking a swipe at you.

  8. 51 minutes ago, slysniper said:

    Ah, I will throw in a whole other concept here.

    The Germans were their own worst enemy as to tank development.

    We see in hindsight, what they could not see at the time for themselves.

    They also had a leader taking them on design paths that likely they did not even agree on. Hilter was a great help to the Allies at times. 

    Weapon design was part of it.

     

    If Germany would have seen the obvious, when they first encountered the T34, I believe that tank had the Answers to the most needed tank design for that period of fighting.

    I feel the Panther was the Germans answer to that design, using many of the same principles but then as all of their projects of the time, over engineered and made it more complex than needed.

    I have this view that if the Germans would have just reversed engineered the T34, realize they needed to increase quantity over quality they might have had the perfect tank and in numbers that could have made an impact.

    So a panther, but a panther built on simple systems that we see in the T34 design.

    So the track system should have been based on a T34, and other similar steps.

    Of course all production should have been reduced to just a few models - so a Panther tank should have been that choice, but only if they had simplified it.

     

    With the mindset they had at the time, none of these concepts would have happened. But if I was a time traveler, and wanted them to succeed. they would of had only one tank in production and it would have been a cross between a T34 and a Panther with multi turret gun and turret configs like we see in today armies.

     

     

    First, I would assume you mean T-34/85. While it was a good tank at the time the first T-34 had a major issue; a two man turret. So could they have crammed everything the Germans regarded as required into a T-34 chassis? Many countries did not go with the Christie suspension because it reduced hull volume. Sloped side armor makes it even more cramped. Now throw a radio in every tank and what else? 

  9. 3 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

    Nope, logical fallacy.

    Two boxes, pick either, that's fifty fifty.

     

    Sorry Sgt, this is called ‘The Monty Hall Problem’ and is fairly famous. Wiki has an article on it. Lots of PhDs wrote scathing letters saying the solution was wrong. One had to watch a computer do this problem thousands of times before he admitted he was wrong.

    The bottom line is that if you switch your choice the only way you lose is if you originally picked the right curtain, which you have a 33% chance of doing.

  10. Just now, Sgt.Squarehead said:

    Nope.

    Constantly repeating idiocy doesn't make it correct, it makes you an idiot.

    Ok, let me put it this way. If you switch your choice the only way you lose is if you originally picked the right curtain (33%). If you picked the wrong window at first (67%), when you switch your choice you win 67% of the time. If you do not switch your choice you win 33% of the time.

  11. 2 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

    There are two choices remaining, you can choose either.....That's fifty fifty.

    Unless you are asking if the new situation changes you probability of winniong re:the original state of play, in which case it does, it changes from 33.3r% to 50%.

    4 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

    There are two choices remaining, you can choose either.....That's fifty fifty.

    Unless you are asking if the new situation changes you probability of winniong re:the original state of play, in which case it does, it changes from 33.3r% to 50%.

     

    If you switch your choice your chance of winning rises to 67%.

  12. 22 minutes ago, BornGinger said:

    Not necessarily the wrong forum. If there was the possibility to buy a game from the Battlefront website and then, if one realised it was another game one wanted, there was the possibility to swap the game already payed for to get another one instead, your question would still be valid. Would the other game that one swapped actually be better or more fun that the one originally paid for?

    So would changing your choice of game by swapping change your odds of feeling that you picked the correct one or would you regret the swap?

    Ok, let’s make it relevant.

    BF hosts a giveaway and the winner get a chance to win CM:WWI with Engine 5. There are three curtains, and you get to pick one, and if a copy of the game is behind the curtain, you win it. So you pick a curtain without opening it. Steve opens another curtain revealing nothing behind it. Steve then gives you the chance of changing your pick.

    Does changing your pick change your chances of winning a coveted copy of CM:WWI?

  13. 2 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

    From their perspective it was.....Sevastapol is massively important to Russia.

    But I suspect you know that full well and that you are being disingenuous.

    If China sponsored a Hawaiian revolution threatening Pearl Harbour, how do you think the US would respond?

    I was talking about Round 2, not Round 1 but invading a sovereign country is never the correct or legal option. And you are claiming that Russia invaded the Crimea because the Ukraine was fomenting revolution? Also, the Panama Canal is pretty important to the US; should we just go cease it? I mean, we did build it.

  14. Many have likely heard of it.

    You are on a game show. There are three curtains and behind one, there is a prize you win if you select the right curtain. You pick one of the curtains and before the host reveals what is behind it, he opens another curtain and it is empty. The host then gives you the chance to change your pick.

    Does changing your pick change your odds of winning?

  15. 55 minutes ago, Probus said:

    I agree, I don't think anything they did would have won them the war. It is interesting to speculate on what would have turned out better for them.     Not that anyone would have wanted them to win.

    Having said that, should they have built sooo many PZ I & II chassis.  Seemed like they were converting the heck out of them.

    Hypothetically; What would have 1,000 more MECHANICALLY RELIABLE Panthers and 1,000 Pz IV Ausf Js (Or their derivatives such as Jagdpanther and Pz IV based Jagdpanzer IVs) have made? I make these figures up so feel free to argue them. But on the basis of my straw man, how does this effect WWII on the Western and Eastern Fronts? Delays the end by how much, if any? Six months?

×
×
  • Create New...