cyrano01
-
Posts
219 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by cyrano01
-
-
57 minutes ago, dan/california said:
The back up command group is the one that gets assembled in a very great hurry when the original one gets mortared/152ed/MLRSed into little tiny pieces. It is usually not as good as the first one, by the time you are putting things back together for the third time the unit is probably combat ineffective anyway. Although the Russians seem to have committed at least some units to the fight in that condition, if the rank of the acting commander listed on HIS obituary is any indication.
To put it another way the top of the units chain of command keeps shorter, very painfully. Maybe the Russians should just go home before their country disintegrates behind them.
I vaguely recall hearing a WW1 historian of the British Army commenting that the best way to become a brigadier was to be a lieutenant in 1914 and not get killed. The Russian Army seems to be working on an accelerated promotion scheme.
-
10 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
There are a lot of differences this time around that make me doubt Russia's ability to defend in place:
- As mentioned, there's nobody waiting to shoot them if they retreat or attempt to surrender (at least not yet!)
- Russia as a nation state viewed Finland as part of it, however there wasn't nearly 100 years of mass population swapping as with Ukraine. This divides public opinion, and therefore the soldier's motivations, for being in Ukraine in the first place. 1930s Russians had no such concept
- Russians today are not as ignorant ad the Russians of the 1930s. They are vastly more aware of their overall situation and even how badly the war is going for them. They are also far more aware of the alternatives if they surrender or retreat.
- Finland didn't have the sort of ability to kill defending Russians in the way the Ukrainians can today.
There's likely others that are critical, but I think these are enough to make a difference. A big difference.
Also, this time out, there are plenty of anti-Russian neutrals happy to supply arms and equipment to Ukraine whereas potential supporters of Finland had other things going on in 1939-40, global demand for weaponry being rather high at the time!
-
2 hours ago, The_Capt said:
Sounds like a either a myth or some weird law on the books that no one actually enforces. ISIS foreign fighters can be charged for “support to a terrorist organization”, which is different.
Sounds about right, I don't believe there has been a prosecution under the Foreign Enlistment Act since the Jameson Raid (1895/6). Would be rather hypocritical too for a country that benefits from the services of the Ghurkas.
-
3 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:
Any ideas about why Russia would spend so many cruise missiles to attack that training base close to Lviv? They caused casualties, but also spent around 30 missiles.. that's a lot for what exactly? Some barracks blown up?
Yes, I've been wondering this. Could be explained by the earlier point about weapons nearing their 'use by' date. Alternatively, if they perceive the AD environment over Ukraine as too hostile to allow overflight it may be that they see this as their only attacking option despite it not being cost-effective. Something must be done, this is something so this must be done.
Either way, without wishing to minimise the pain of the losses at the barracks, the Russians do seem to be breaking windows with guineas (to borrow a phrase derived from similarly inept British use of resources a few hundred years ago).
-
1 hour ago, kraze said:
I didn't know The Guardian is now ran by our DoD.
How about checking actual official source?
Втрата translates to loss, not 'death'
Our DoD doesn't calculate dead or wounded because that's impossible. But press is uneducated in milspeak.
So again, check actual sources
Agreed. General media are usually pretty lacking in military matters (certainly in the UK) and I would expect the Guardian to be less good than the average, talking competence and depth of fact checking/analysis here rather than inherent bias. I'd be willing to bet the journalist only went to the english language Kiev Independent website rather than the primary source. Doubly so since they probably don't have a kraze or a Haiduk on hand to translate for them.
-
4 hours ago, akd said:
29th CAA commander possibly killed:
Bill Slim observed that, 'Nothing is so good for the morale of the troops as ocassionally to see a dead general.' So Russian morrale should be through the roof right?
-
9 minutes ago, danfrodo said:
...Two, they are just bristling w AT weapons. Three, DANG THAT IS SCARY! ...
This was what struck me too. The wide variety of AT weapons being carried and the fact that almost everyone seemed to have one. The days of one A/T weapon per squad/section seem to be dedlining, at least if you are facing a heavily mechanised opponent.
-
8 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
Even more so, whenever the US started to push for tougher action on Russia the EU pushed back. Not just because of oil/gas, but because of the easy access EU companies had to Russian markets. Markets that were growing for the most part. And if the US pushed too hard then the EU started complaining about how the US is always trying to tell Europeans what to do as if they own everything. And then in the US political groups and politicians would start in with isolationist rhetoric. And Putin was funding all of these voices, primarily right wing nationalism but also left wing "peace" movements.
Sorry, the fact is Europe has a very long history of wishing away complicated problems in their own back yard. There's only so much the US can do without looking to be the same kind of jerk that Russia is.
Steve
Definitely this. You pay a price for strategic resilience and governments/taxpayers have not been willing to pay it. Large scale movmenet towards gas to reduce carbon levels from coal fired power stations and a total unwillingness to invest in nuclear (France excepted), Germany is in a particualr bind due to the closure of their nuclear plants. Meanwhile in the UK we have governments that simply hate ever having to do anything or spend money, so long term resilience or strategic thought are totally out of the question. This applies to health services, military, transport, energy, the lot.
-
12 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
The alternative is... not have any alliances with legal teeth in it to protect itself from Russian aggression? I think it's better to get NATO and the EU to commit to something and then see how things go.
If things go the right way there will be a change of foreign policy in Russia that moves it away from beating up its neighbors to feel good about itself. That won't happen overnight, but given enough disincentives for aggression it is possible to get started on that.
EDIT to add that becoming a full member of NATO is also a possibility for Ukraine. That should be up to Ukraine and NATO, not Russia (long standing argument here from Russia!). But for now, if I were Ukraine I'd not be pushing that particular point. It's not necessary.
Steve
Certainly better to have than not. I just wouldn't want to place any reliance on it once the immediate crisis is past. Oddly enough I would be pushing for NATO membership were I Ukrainian, my bet would be that allies would be more likely to make good on Article 5 than anything else - or at least the Russians couldn't guarantee that they wouldn't.
Still the matter of beating the Russians first though. As Mrs Beeton said, 'first catch your hare.'
-
3 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:
NATO will still be a very valueable ally for Ukraine and it's best chance for a free and strong nation in the (far) future, inside or outside NATO/EU. It's too easy to scorn NATO/EU for it's unwillingness to risk a world war over Ukraine, but rationally it's the right decision. Democracies can't plunge as easily into war as a dictatorship can. Sometimes that's very bitter to swallow, also for many Europeans and Americans, but in the end it's wise and in everybody's interest, including that of the Ukrainian people. But one thing is certain, the West will win this second Cold War, just like we won the first. And Putin/Russia will have to pay for the crimes commited.
I don't disagree with you. If I were Ukrainian I would certainly want future NATO membership to deter direct attack. I'm just not convinced NATO would be prepared to go to war with Russia for anything less than that. e.g. To enforce the terms ot any peace treaty that involved demilitarisation or force withdrawal. I can't quite see a future US, or UK head of gevernment anouncing that Ruissian has moved military units back into the Crimea (if it were Russian territory at that point) and so 'we are now at war with Russia.' Ecenomic sanctions maybe...
-
5 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
This is not what I think the Ukrainians will do. It is certainly not what I'd do. Here's what I'd push for:
- All Russian military forces along the common border to be withdrawn 100km away forever. Violations would trigger immediate and specific actions backed up by the EU/NATO.
- Crimea to be kept demilitarized, but administration changed immediately to Ukrainian laws.
- Crimea is to be permanently de-militarized no matter who the people vote to go with. No ground forces, no air defenses, not artillery, nada. Remilitarizing would have spelled out consequences (backed by EU/NATO). Maybe naval support bases allowed, but no armed ground presence.
- Russia to pay X amount over Y years in cash or in resources (oil and gas in particular). Violation of the terms of this would trigger consequences spelled out and backed by EU/NATO.
The only problem is that, if I were the Ukrainians, I wouldn't be 100% confident that NATO, and especially not the EU, would be willing or able to enforce these in the future. 5 or 10 years out I suspect that there might be no appetite to use military action to enforce treaty conditions against a re-armed and revisionist (and still nuclear armed) Russia. Any more than the western allies were willing to take action when Hitler re-militarised the Rhineland in 1936.
-
56 minutes ago, Kinophile said:
Except for the part where they returned to the same firing position for shot 2. The fact that they could, and not suffer the consequences speaks volumes for the utter failure of RUS armor/inf coordination and integration.
If I did that in CMBS, pffft, fuggeddaboutit.
This; when I saw the RPG gunner heading back to the same spot I was mentally shouting, 'noooo, he will have rotated his turret, he will see you easily.' CMBS would appear to be a harder teacher than the Marshal Rodion Malinovsky Military Armored Forces Academy.
-
2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
Yup, read that one and a similar one from a different (known) think tank. Same overall conclusions... the Russians have not invested in the sorts of equipment, personnel, training, and practice for running a large scale air campaign. Add this to not thinking they needed one because the Ukrainians would fold up on Day 1 and it's pretty easy to see why Russia's performance in the air has been extremely sub par. And it seems to be getting worse now that Ukraine's getting the hang of shooting down aircraft. Depending on source, Russia lost 2-6 fixed wing aircraft yesterday and 5-8 helicopters. Those sorts of losses are not sustainable.
Steve
When I read the two RUSI reports and saw the spike in a/c losses in the last 24-48 hours I wondered if Putin and the top brass were starting to push the VVS into stepping up their intensity and forcing them out of their comfort/competence zone.
-
22 minutes ago, Erwin said:
Not sure how determined the Brits are to sanction Russians:
Update from GOV.UK for:
Entering England during coronavirus
Change made:
If you began your journey in Russia, you do not need to complete a passenger locator form, or take a COVID-19 test before travel to England or on arrival.Time updated:
7:41pm, 5 March 2022Well, the government has advised UK citizens to leave Russia as soon as possible...
-
4 minutes ago, sburke said:
yeah I think that maybe too many to arrest... So when does Putin give the order to start shooting Russians?
It looks like that is old video dating back to January.
-
1 hour ago, LongLeftFlank said:
Sink it! well offshore. One of many reasons why an amphibious invasion of Taiwan remains an extraordinarily risky undertaking.
I seem to recall that the Royal Marines in South Georgia managed to damage an Argentinian corvette with a Charlie-G and small arms fire back in 1982. Pretty sure a Javelin would be rather more effective.
-
44 minutes ago, Haiduk said:
Air Forces Command claimed that yesterday Russian Tu-22M3 launched 16 missiles at Kharkiv from Russian territory. In result of this strike several buildings were ruined in residential areas with dozens of killed and wounded.
If this is the case it speaks volumes about the failings of the Russian SEAD/OCA operations. Having to use stand off weapons to lob HE into urban areas at this stage of the war does suggest that the VKS is still worried about Ukrainian air defences otherwise they could overfly the target high enough up to avoid MANPADs and light AA and pick their spot with either guided or dumb bombs.
-
2 minutes ago, Haiduk said:
Sumy oblast. Russians abandoned own vehicles and fled. Reason is unknown. "2" can be symbol of 2nd Guard "Tamanskaya" motor-rifle division
So, if the Taman Guards are out of the way now's the moment for a coup in Moscow? Gerasimov? Bortnikov? Anyone?
-
33 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
Russian Will is right now the center of gravity for this whole thing and time is not on its side.
Truly the night belongs to Charlie (Von Clausewitz that is).
-
1 minute ago, Vet 0369 said:
Keeping warfighters (the Nuevo term for actual battle personnel) in the dark, and knowledge restricted to the immediate operation, is standard practice among ALL militaries in the world. What one doesn’t know about operational plans cannot be divulged if one is taken.
Not especially Auftragstaktik though, not that such a thing was ever big in the Russian military.
-
2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
There are all kinds of nasty things Russia can still do, including wider use of cluster munitions.
The old saying about there is nothing more dangerous than a cornered injured animal. Putin is in that corner and he is getting more wounded by the day. Anything is possible. I'd not even rule out him thinking a tactical nuke was worth a try.
Steve
Quite, scary stuff. At hte very least the Russians might decide to go down the Grozny/Aleppo route in Kiev rather than committing their second wave troops to an immediate assault on the city.
-
1 hour ago, Vet 0369 said:
They could be “bullet sponges” to depreciate the UKR weapons supplies before they send in the “elite.”
I'm almost wondering if some of the better quality units are being held back against the possibility of outside intervention, depsite the statements from the West that it won't happen. If Putin is sufficiently paranoid...
-
All sounds perfectly reasonable to be using CM Pro to model confronting HM enemies, got to be more fun than extracting data from the RARDE wargame for use as base scenarios back in the 80s was. What does concern me a touch is the rest of the Pro catalogue. Kind of hoping that nobody is making heavy use of 'Nuclear War Simulator: Professional Edition, especially not in, say, Tehran, or Pyonyang or anywhere really...
-
This dates back to 2017 but it might be a decent starting point.
How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
I'm just wondering if the anti-ship missile might not actually be LMM/Martlet. The Ukrainians already have it and would appear to have shot down a drone using it. The weapon is designed to be capable against small boats and, although the RN uses it from helicopters, there seems to be apossible surface mount available.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martlet_(missile)