ASL Veteran
-
Posts
5,864 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
9
Posts posted by ASL Veteran
-
-
Not trying to move the thread off topic any more than it already has, but apparently US, UK, and French forces (ships I suppose) as well as Saudi and Jordanian forces are assisting in intercepting Iranian drones and missiles. I just thought that was interesting. I also saw something about 'stuff' happening inside Iran, but I haven't watched or read enough about it to know what's going on exactly.
-
7 hours ago, dan/california said:
Bleep me I hope he is wrong.
A few days ago I read somewhere that Speaker Johnson intends to bring the Ukraine / Israel / Taiwan aide package to a vote when congress returns. I haven't heard that any of the Republicans that supported removing the previous speaker would support MTG's move to vacate the current speaker. However, the main reason the previous Speaker was ousted was because Democrats supported the Republicans who voted to vacate. In theory MTG's out on an island and irrelevant so she wouldn't matter if Speaker Johnson could rely on Democrats not supporting MTG because she doesn't have enough (or maybe any) support from other Republicans. However, one can't really expect that Democrats wouldn't vote in favor of vacating the position since - well why not? Also, maybe Hakeem Jefferies can become the Speaker?
So the bottom line seems to be - if one Republican (MTG) moves to vacate the Speaker position and every Democrat votes in favor of that then Johnson would not survive and there is absolutely no incentive for Democrats to support Johnson. The only way the aid package can move forward is if Johnson can convince MTG that bringing the package to a vote would either be in her best interests or that Republicans would benefit in general. Without Democrats though MTG would be irrelevant. There should be some special elections coming up for all the Republicans who essentially quit (angry about the removal of the previous Speaker) and reduced the size of the majority. If they retain those seats (I don't think any of those seats are projected to flip for any reason) then maybe the majority can be restored sufficiently such that MTG can't vacate the Speaker position with just herself and Democrats, but that wouldn't be until June I think.
I haven't been paying super close attention to political maneuvering though so I might not be 100% accurate on this.
-
6 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
Thanks for this post and suffering through the messiness that is democratic discourse. Although I was 95% sure where this was headed after sfhand's first post, I am obligated to let it play out if this is to be a truly open conversation where people don't fear the "ban stick" for voicing a contrary position. As painful as it might be to work through, it's an acceptable price to the alternative.
(on a side note... 25 years of managing this Forum has given me some "mad skilz" in pattern recognition. The conspiracy theorists like to think of themselves as special, but in reality they are common and mundane. Which is why they are so easily spotted)
Well summed up and definitely depressing how easily people are duped. It's not just the extremes (Flat Earth, Q-Anon, Stolen Election, etc), but very much everyday experiences. There's a reason why so many YouTube ads start out with phrases like:
1. One simple trick/hack...
2. This crazy idea...
3. Throw out all of you X and buy this...
4. You aren't ready to handle this...
5. You can earn millions by...
etc.
I see things like this and feel a little vomit in my throat, yet there's plenty of people that think "wow, this sounds great!". The same people that believe conspiracy theories are the same ones who jump on pretty much any manipulation train someone invites them onto. Politics being an obvious one that constantly derails otherwise good people into tracks that go nowhere good.
I feel bad for these people because it's all self inflicted. They spend their money they rarely can afford on scams. They spend their time angry at things that don't exist. They become less social, losing friends, family, and better balanced communities. This makes them angrier and more depressed. That's not a great way to go through life on this planet.
And this is the other reason I allow conspiracy theory/alternate reality discussions to run amok for a short period of time. The rest of the world needs to wake up to how dangerous these people are to themselves and others. The Tuckerfication of the world will bring about nothing by misery. The more we are exposed to the danger, the clearer it becomes and the easier it is to spot it. There might not be much we can do to combat it, but not recognizing or understanding the danger certainly isn't going to help.
Steve
People tend to believe in things that reinforce their worldviews and disbelieve things that don't fit within that worldview. Everyone has a weakness that can be exploited by someone else.
-
I think it might be time for some drone footage straight from the front lines:
-
1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:
You missed the point of my post and went way off track into deep, dark, shark infested waters. I'll try to pull you back into the boat
My point was that terrorist acts are committed with a specific reaction in mind. The purpose of the attack, therefore, is to get the desired response. What we don't know about ISIS-K is what they wanted the Russian government to do. For example, massive security sweeps and detentions, 24/7 anti-Islamic tirades on Russian TV, widespread vigilante actions, etc. If that is what they wanted, it doesn't look like they're going to get it. Compare to Hamas' attacks which were met with exactly the response Hamas was looking for.
Steve
Except that terrorist acts aren't committed with a specific reaction in mind. Terrorist acts are committed with a specific goal in mind. The goals of Hamas are not comparable to the goals of ISIS and there is no possible reconciliation between Israel and Hamas. Hamas doesn't need to create acts of terrorism in order to gain Palestinian recruits. Polls, for what they are worth, show that Hamas has somewhere upwards of 70 percent favorability to the citizens of Gaza so they don't need to convince anyone. Everyone in their neighborhood is already signed up. No, the only people Hamas needs to recruit are non Palestinians to buy what they are selling so that they can continue to attack Israel and convince the international community to condemn Israel for defending itself. Therefore the goal of Hamas is to attack Israel, claim that Israel is filled with genocidal Nazi colonizers who rape and pillage for entertainment, and hope that eventually either they can remove Israel from the face of the earth themselves, or that the international community will do it for them. The only way Israel can end the cycle is to completely destroy Hamas and replace them with a government structure that's more amenable to compromise, because if they don't Hamas will just attack again as soon as they are able and we'll be right back where we are again today. ISIS isn't concerned so much with Israel. Their goals are more comprehensive. How does an attack inside Russia advance the goal of the restoration of the caliphate I'm not really sure, but they have launched attacks in Iran recently too and Russia has / had troops in Syria so maybe it's not all that complicated. I don't want to get this thread sidetracked though and I know how badly this topic can spin out of control so I think I'll just leave it there.
3. What are Hamas’ aims?
What Hamas plainly seeks is the establishment of a Palestinian state. Where there is doubt is over the territory in which it envisages the establishment of the state, since it initially called for a Palestinian state occupying the West Bank, Gaza and the space now occupied by the state of Israel. In fact, they violently opposed the 1993 Oslo peace accords between the Palestine National Liberation Organisation and the State of Israel. Accordingly, they initially refused to form part of the Palestinian National Authority, which was beginning to gain international –though not unanimous– recognition as the legitimate Palestinian authority and the blueprint for the future Palestinian state.
4. Does Hamas recognise Israel?
Although public statements by Hamas leaders vary, its denial of the legitimacy of the state of Israel has been a constant point of friction in the region.
Important doctrines of ISIL include its belief that it represents the restoration of the caliphate of early Islam, and that all Muslims are required to pledge allegiance to it;[9] that a "defiled" Islam must be purged of apostasy, often with bloody sectarian killings,[10] that the final Day of Judgment by God is near and will follow the defeat of the army of "Rome" by IS;[2] that a strict adherence to following the precepts "established by the Prophet Muhammad and his earliest followers" is necessary, surpassing even that of other Salafi-Jihadi groups.[2]
-
52 minutes ago, Sgt Joch said:
https://www.politico.eu/article/energy-infrastructure-target-attack-ukraine-russia-war/
Another article that apparently the Biden Admin is asking Ukraine to stop targeting Russian Oil infrastructure.
Since the whole focus now is on the election, the cynic in me thinks Biden is worried that if this causes Oil prices to go up, it will increase the chances Trump gets elected.
Whether oil prices are / will be affected or not isn't really known at this time. Even the activity of the Houthis could be having an impact and / or it's also possible that this type of activity is already baked into the price (commodities traders are going to anticipate stuff and price it into the Bid Ask spread if oil has a spread - I'm pretty confident that it does, but it's not exactly easy to pull up an actual trading price online). I can't imagine that the current administration would go this route for that reason unless it was already having a discernable impact and that impact was having an obvious effect on the electorate. No, I actually don't think you are being cynical enough! I think I'll leave it there though cause we really don't want to be having that discussion I think lol.
-
10 hours ago, FancyCat said:
No offense but assuming you got the info from https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=60622
The picture is not exactly imports bad.
From the same link, right under your quote:
Edit: just realized I didn't find your quote in the link. Regardless imports of crude oil does not necessarily mean a rise in oil pricing is wholly negative for the U.S.
Without tossing various names into the discussion and whether the US is exporting or importing here is what the CEIC says the US was producing since 2011. If you select the 'Max' button you can see what the US has been producing since 1960. This is also a discussion that drives up the blood pressure of certain forum contributors so best to move on to something else if we want another game created.
US Crude Oil: Production, 1960 – 2023 | CEIC Data
-
Solving the manpower crisis
-
3 hours ago, Eddy said:
Am I right in thinking that an normal majority (i.e. not 2/3rds) is needed for a discharge petition and all that a discharge petition means is that the Bill goes before congress? And then it needs another normal majority to be passed? Also does the Senate need to vote on it again?
Just trying to get my head around what the Speaker can do to put the kibosh on it.
Who is sponsoring the discharge petition? If it's a Democrat I wouldn't put too much into that - it's possible it could go through, but every Republican who pushes this forward is basically torpedoing the speaker's authority and he would then become ineffective at moving future legislation going forward (the Speaker of the House must be able to get his caucus to agree to different things to pass legislation and if his authority is undermined then he would be ineffective). So that basically means the Republicans would need to find a new Speaker. I'm not sure how many Republicans want to go through that again just to pass this (as important as this is to some here, the US has a lot of big issues to tackle). Besides, none of us on this board know what's going on within the Republican caucus - the leadership likely already has a plan / agreement on what to do.
There are a lot of Democrats who will refuse to vote for this as well simply because they don't want to agree to anything that sends money to Israel. I haven't seen anyone talking / writing about this Discharge Petition and if nobody is talking about it then I doubt it has any legs - but we'll see. The votes might be there to pass it if the Speaker brings it to the floor, but just because the votes might there for regular order that doesn't mean that a Discharge Petition will succeed. Even if every Democrat signed it (and not every one will) you would basically have to get enough Republicans to sign on and then look for a new Speaker of the House.
-
6 hours ago, Joe982 said:
Loan?
What does that mean?
In this context my assumption would be that the Russian assets would be used as a form of collateral and since they mention 'Surety' then I would say as collateral vs a form of Surety bond (a bond is a form of loan - when you buy a corporate bond you are essentially loaning the issuing company money in exchange for an interest payment) sort of deal and since they mention reparations perhaps they could demand some form of reparations in exchange for getting their assets returned when this whole thing is finally over.
QuoteIn practice, surety bonds can have several variations to their definition, meaning, and purpose depending on the specific bond requirement. There are thousands of different types of surety bonds across the country. Some surety bonds provide coverage for, or ensure compliance with, local, state, or federal licensing and permit requirements. Other surety bonds guarantee payment of tax or other financial obligations. These bonds are referred to as "strict financial guarantee" bonds and often times are more expensive due to inherent risk of guaranteeing a payment as opposed to a compliance requirement.
Another common type of surety bond called is referred to as a contract bond. These surety bonds provide a guarantee that contractors complete construction projects in accordance with specifications and make all required payments to subcontractors and suppliers. Contractors engaged in a variety of both government contracts and private sector work must secure contract bonds as required by project owners.
-
2 hours ago, Kraft said:
I thought this was the leading theory as to how the situation can and will be resolved in the end?
How would they even pressure him if they cant go around his block?
The Pentagon's budget will need a continuing resolution passed sometime around March 22 if a regular budget can't be agreed upon (which is doubtful so they have to keep passing continuing resolutions to keep last year's budget going). More than likely the Ukraine / Israel / random other stuff aide package will be resolved around that time since it's likely going to be folded into all the other defense spending (that's what I've read anyway and it makes sense).
-
1 minute ago, Battlefront.com said:
It's been my opinion that the deliveries to Russia by its partners would mirror that of Ukraine and its partners... a big bump in supply that is limited and rapidly depleted leading to "shell hunger" again.
Russia's like a typical materialistic, but not all that rich, showoff that splashes money around on fancy cars, watches, expensive dinners, etc. Eventually he can't keep living the lifestyle he wants, so he starts doing things to keep it going (embezzling is a favorite for such types). For a while the scheme works and the lavish lifestyle appears to continue on. At some point it collapses because it wasn't ever sustainable.
What Russia should have done was cut back its artillery usage so that the big boost of artillery rounds would ensure it a steadier supply over a longer period of time. But that's not the Russian way. When they got those shells the increased their daily use rates again and that obviously meant burning through their new supply.
Everything Russia does is designed to try and get over the hump and cause Ukraine to surrender. That translates into maximum EVERYTHING short term with very little eye towards the long term. That is not a sustainable attitude, but obviously they've not completely run out of capabilities yet.
Steve
Shell hunger is nothing new. Some may recall reading about 'We Shall Shell' pamphlets circulated during WW1 while attempts were made to ramp up production. The other half of the equation is barrel wear. I'm pretty confident that these barrels are being pushed to their limits and accuracy must suffer. Also much of Ukraine's artillery is 122, 152, and 130 so when the EU puts the stipulation that whatever they will supply will be domestically produced - well that's mostly going to be NATO standard 155. However, even with every NATO member nation basically producing the same thing they could still only deliver half of what was promised.
-
13 minutes ago, Haiduk said:
I doubt we will loose a will to fight, but this also depends from western ammunition supply. Our authority representatives hints directly - if we don't get enough technological weapon, we will be forced to mobilize more people. Taking into account how many "old Soviet school" officers in brigade, corps and OSUV HQs, with their "you have to take this tree-plant and I don't interst how you will do this", this can lead to much more the same known episodes like 7th company of 116th brigade attack near Robotyne, when all this unit remained on battlefield...
I read somewhere that Ukrainian males aged between 18 and 26 can't be mobilized / aren't draftable or something although they can choose to enlist if they want to. I've also read / heard that the average age of a Ukrainian soldier is something like 44 years old - which is nuts. You can't even enlist in the US army if you are older than 35. If true, it sure seems like the individuals that you want most are the ones that can't be had for some unknown reason. I'm with The Capt though - nobody has more at stake than Ukraine and if Ukraine can't even get enough recruits into the service then that's a big issue. There are plenty of fingers that are getting pointed at various political parties, countries, and 'issues', but if Ukraine doesn't even have the willpower to get their 18 to 26 year olds into military service then I would think the biggest finger has to be pointed right at Ukraine. Assuming that information is accurate.
-
When you revive the deleted unit is it still associated with the same VPs. In other words, are all units associated with the same VP 'group' and when you delete the units that are part of the group are they still associated with the group as before? Also, if the reinforcement hasn't arrived yet then I don't think you get the points for it - it would only be for units actually on the map at the time the scenario ends. I'm not certain that I'm following exactly what you are describing though so hopefully I'm not misunderstanding anything.
-
Don't know if anyone already posted this but I thought it was interesting
-
My impression is that Ukraine is attempting to replicate how western nations attack enemies through air superiority, but they are doing it with missiles and drones instead (and less effectively than the US air force would be doing it). The target choices though do resemble what the US hits with the various air campaigns over the years. Air Defense systems and installations. Russian naval targets. Interdiction of supply depots and lines of communications. Command and control centers. Individual leaders. Artillery systems through counterbattery and rocket fire (HIMARs).
Russian artillery is primarily being used to support the front lines from what I understand, and the Russians don't seem to have the same targeting priorities as Ukraine does. This seems to be a traditional Russian approach to warfare. Even in WW2 The Germans said that Soviet air and artillery was primarily focused on targets within twenty miles of the front lines. German troops could move with near total freedom beyond that distance unlike in the west when movement was interdicted at almost all distances from the front lines. Sure, Russia does do some coordinated and large scale missile attacks at Ukrainian strategic targets, but they don't appear to be very effective at it.
Ukraine doesn't need to gain full air superiority, but if they want to launch a successful offensive at some point, I think they will need to keep the Russian air force and helicopters at bay at the point of attack through a combination of F16s and modern Air Defense systems.
-
I haven't been following this thread too closely recently, although I have tried to keep up with current events as best as time allows.
From my perspective, Ukraine was at its weakest and Russia was at its strongest (relatively speaking as compared to each other) on day one. Every day since day one has Russia getting weaker relative to Ukraine overall. Russia has fewer armored vehicles of all types than at the beginning of the war. Ukraine has more, and better, armored vehicles, artillery systems, and various other equipment than at the beginning of the war. I believe that currently the forces in the field are roughly equivalent in terms of overall numbers. Up to this point Ukraine hasn't been able to leverage their strengthening position relative to Russia, but Russia hasn't been able to replicate anything that they accomplished in the first month or two of when this whole thing started, and it doesn't look like they are capable of doing anything close to that in the foreseeable future. Sure, Russia can grind out 'Victories' by WW1 standards, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the Russian army to cross the Dnepr River again, or even occupy all of Ukraine east of the Dnepr River (or capture Kiev for that matter).
To this point Russia, somewhat surprisingly, hasn't gained air superiority over Ukraine. I am also of the opinion that a lack of air superiority holds Ukraine back. It seems to me that the biggest advantage the US military has over all their modern opponents, probably even dating back to WW2, is air superiority (or even supremacy). Once you have air supremacy everything else becomes a lot easier for a variety of reasons since air supremacy, to a large extent, gives you the ability to dictate the terms of the conflict.
With that in mind, it seems to me that the biggest factor in how things will play out will be how Ukraine can expand the capabilities of their air force and whether or not deliveries of F16s, and other modern aircraft can influence the outcome along with the Leopards, Abrams, and artillery systems, etcetera. If Ukraine can gain some form of air superiority, even temporarily over a specific sector of the front lines, I think it could have a very big impact on whether or not Ukraine can conduct a successful offensive. Trying to break through Russian fortified lines and exploit a breakthrough to good effect without owning air superiority seems like a tall task to me. Russians throwing waves of infantry and armor at various points of the front lines and gaining a few meters of ground each week is almost irrelevant to me. If Russia decides to stop attacking and just sit on the defensive, then if Ukraine hasn't gained air superiority I think it's time to worry about the outcome if you are hoping for a Ukrainian victory. So long as Russia keeps attacking like it's the Somme all over again then, by all means Russia, have at it.
-
Given the stats at from the Blitz, overall I'm satisfied with the results. There is only so much we can do to fine tune scenarios. There generally isn't sufficient time for anyone to play it head to head before release so we mostly have to test vs the AI from each side and tweak from that. Feedback can also be difficult since it can be 'interpretive'. One person could say that it's completely unbalanced in favor of one side, and then once it's released it turns out that it's unbalanced to the opposite side. It's much better to watch YouTube videos of the scenarios because you can actually see exactly what the player is doing and tweak from that, but we won't see that stuff until after release.
It's just too difficult to balance something for any specific player or match between two specific players. All we can do is hope that the aggregate of all the games played works out such that each side has a reasonable chance of victory. It takes a lot of games against the AI as well as a bit of luck and intuition. Sometimes it works out great and sometimes we produce a big turd. It just comes with the territory.
-
It's possible you didn't miss a thing. The part the Germans seemed to struggle with is they are forced to hit the crest of the hill (and I don't think there is a wall directly on the crest so they are mostly out in the open while you are behind walls if I remember right) and if the German doesn't hit the crest all at once, then the full firepower of the Canadians is on just the Germans on the crest (if the Canadians advance up a wall or two) so it really depends on what the German player did. I think the Canadian wants to be positioned on the wall closest to the crest that they can reach and then just blast the Germans off the crest as they arrive.
-
Head to head results from the Blitz. 14 games registered
Gaming Records 1st Side Player 2nd Side Player Result Score 
LuckyLlama vs. Captain K 
Canada Tactical Victory 54 18
weta_nz vs. Singapore Sling 
Draw 36 36
para bellum vs. kadursahl 
Heer Major Victory 60 12
weapon2010 vs. raz_atoth 
Draw 36 36
Safetyman vs. A Canadian Cat 
Canada Total Defeat 6 66
Panzer Lehr vs. TeddyA 
Heer Minor Victory 48 24
Guardsman vs. speedyninja 
Heer Total Victory 66 6
Panzer Lehr vs. a1steaks 
Draw 36 36
BletchleyGeek vs. Duff 
Draw 36 36
Spatenknecht vs. Fusilier9 
Heer Total Defeat 6 66
Fusilier9 vs. Spatenknecht
Canada Major Victory 60 12
BrosifBallin vs. miller41 
Heer Major Victory 60 12
Duff vs. a1steaks
Canada Major Victory 60 12
Mad Mike vs. Jpratt88 
Heer Total Victory 66 6 -
From what I remember the smoke rounds that show for off map artillery is counted as a subset of total rounds. In other words, if you have 50 rounds and 10 smoke, then you can either fire ten smoke and 40 HE or you can fire 50 HE and no smoke because the smoke rounds aren't separate things from the HE.
-
yes, body parts everywhere and the seat soaked in blood. Not sure that I would be too thrilled to remove the body parts and sit in a pool of blood to take over the driver's position when the enemy is still firing at my tank.
QuoteDuring a fire attack on Krinkelt we took a direct hit in front of the turret. It ripped a hole of about 1 meter into the armor. The explosion virtually tore our driver, Sturmmann Karl Heiz von Elm into pieces. Our radio operator Sturmmann Gottfried Opitz lost his left arm. The radio equipment had provided him with some protection. The legs of Sturmmann Hannes Simon ended up full of shrapnel. I was sitting in the cupola, my legs pulled up, so I got away with just a fright. I was able to get Hannes and Gottfried onto an armored personnel carrier which was on its way to the dressing station. Our panzer was towed to the repair company at Losheimergraben.
QuoteSeveral B Squadron tanks were knocked out, some burning. I ordered Barney (Trooper Barnes) to turn left to face the enemy tanks and then reverse. We were now firing at the enemy but I could tell they were ranging on us. We had reversed about 25 yards and we were hit in the front and the shell killed our gunner, Bill Slater, outright. Stan Duckworth (wireless operator / loader) was seriously wounded in the legs and slumped to the turret floor.
Though himself wounded in the knee, Jim tried unsuccessfully to open the two forward crew hatches, before giving up and hauling the wounded operator out of the still reversing tank. Jim carried the operator for an hour to an Advanced Field Dressing Station where he himself collapsed with wounds that ended his Army career. Only twenty years later did Jim learn why the tank had continued moving. Throwing the tank into reverse gear was an instinctive response. Barney, the driver, had gone a step further by inventing a device to keep the accelerator compressed if he were wounded while reversing. The gadget served its purpose; with its driver dead at the controls the tank continued its unrelenting backwards voyage across the battlefield.
QuoteWe were firing from all barrels. Untersturmfuhrer Teichert’s II zug attacked south of the village. We were located more to the west of town. Zugfuhrer Dietrich in Panther 135 ordered us by radio to follow him. Teichert was immobile in the village, surrounded by enemy infantry. His panzer had taken a hit to the tracks. We drove behind Panther 135 in the direction of the village to get Teichert out. Panther 135 was hit from a row of bushes, approximately 100 meters away. The crew had to bail out. All except the radio operator made it. Obstructed by the heavy smoke from the knocked-out vehicle, we nevertheless fired a few anti-tank shells in the direction of the row of bushes. Untersturmfuhrer Dietrich and his crew came running towards our panzer and waved us back. We did a 180 degree turn and got out of firing range of the Canadians. After some 500 meters we found cover at a row of trees and set up a firing position. Through my gunner’s sight I watched a virtual wall of fire coming at us from about 900 meters away. We no longer had time to think, load – fire, load – fire, as fast as we could. Then it was over for us, too. Hits to the hull and the gun had destroyed the accuracy of the aiming mechanism. We were firing much too short. The next hit came just below the cupola. The cupola and the head of our commander Hohnecker were gone. Our driver, Binder, understood the situation. He turned around at full throttle and drove into cover. We were ordered by radio, no longer ready for action, to drive in the direction of the repair shop. With our nerves on edge and our dead comrade in the panzer, we drove in the direction of Martinville. There we buried our comrade Hohnecker.
-
Switching around isn't what they would do and taking more time to do it wouldn't make it more 'realistic'. if the driver were killed but the tank was still functional the crew would bail out. If another crewmember was killed and the driver was still functioning the tank would retreat off the map. Basically any time a crew member is killed in a WW2 tank that ends the fight for that tank.
-
I think games are still being reported on at the Blitz.
How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted