c3k
-
Posts
13,228 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
22
Posts posted by c3k
-
-
1 hour ago, IanL said:
LOL sorry. I never googled it - sounds like I should not.
It's an inside joke on the forum where Steve sometimes laments trying to simulate reality and he either says there is more money in making a candy crush like game or that he should go all sci fi and to space lobsters of doom that would have no tether to reality and so would not have arguments over which vehicle has less armour. or more armour. or goes too fast. or too slow. or, or, ...
I think the original title came from @c3k but Steve has embraced it.
You do not embrace Space Lobsters. THEY embrace YOU! With their oversized feeding claw, dragging you to their mouth manipulators, to be slowly pulled apart and fed into their gaping mandibles! As you are rent limb from limb, with your armored suit rendered no more a hindrance than a piece of cloth to these monsters, your only choice to scream your override code and hope your anti-matter plasma generator is able to cascade into a failure mode creating an anti-matter explosion great enough to destroy the Lobster King's flagship dreadnaught.
Or something.
I cannot take credit for "Space Lobsters of Doom". It very well may have been me...or not. I seriously don't remember. It's like trying to remember how you first learned to breathe. Best if we give credit to the community, writ large.
-
3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
Guys, can we please stop it. I find it extremely saddening that we can have hundreds of pages of on-topic political discussions directly related to the war, but pretty much one mild mention of Trump provokes a completely off-topic political fight that has NOTHING to do with this war.
C3K, you say you don't want this thread to devolve into political bickering, yet you are the one that is taking us down that path. I am asking you to please realize that you are acting against your own stated wishes for this thread.
I am already late for something because of this, which does not make me happy. I've giving Elvis some instructions to monitor and vacation anybody that keeps things going off track.
Steve
I just read this.
I will only say that I agree that Geopolitical forces push nations in certain directions. The personalities of the leaders are irrelevant. Hence my push whenever I see the opposite being posited.
The exception, of course, is lunacy...such as Putin.
I'll respect your wishes. Your forum.
-
Deleted to comply with Steve's request.
-
14 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
Overall I agree, but wars are political in nature and this one certainly has a lot of politics involved. If it's relevant to the war then I'm inclined to allow it to some extent.
I would ask that you examine your own approach to politics discussion here. By that I mean you don't appear to have a problem with criticism of other nation's politics or their leadership. The mention of Trump was in response to my mention of Berlusconi, yet you only singled one out. I've also not seen you objecting to discussion of Macron, Sholtz, or others who have not been portrayed in a positive light (to say the least) hundreds of times in this thread.
This is an international Forum with a large array of opinions. It is not in the interests of this Forum, this thread, or us as individuals for me to selectively censor in order to protect one specific group of people in one specific country.
Steve
Indeed, I have not objected to, nor supported, any viewpoint on foreign politics because I realize that all I would bring would be a distorted American perspective. I have no basis for getting into those discussions...either pro or con or trying to tamp them down to prevent spiraling off-topic.
I see a lot of blame put on former President Trump for this invasion. Funny how Putin only invaded AFTER President Trump left office...
1. The Russian Hoax has been explicitly proven to be a forgery created by the Hillary Clinton campaign. All the "Russia Russia Russia" hysteria in the US media has been conclusively shown to be a political ploy by the DNC, supported by the Mainstream Media.
2. President Biden is on tape bragging about corrupting Ukraine to protect his son, Hunter, from a criminal investigation by the authorities in Ukraine. He used his position as vice president under President Obama to wield a $1 Billion dollar stick over Ukraine. This is on tape.
3. The debacle of the US withdrawal from Afghanistan occurred under President Biden. Whether that withdrawal was warranted or not is immaterial: the process of the withdrawal was a total fustercluck. How much weakness did this signal to Putin?
China...by sending wealth to the Biden family via Hunter...has shown the world what the Biden family cares about.
Putin obviously thought that Biden was weak and would not involve the US in this invasion. (Due to corruption, lack of leadership, and international weakness.)
Whoever in the US administration began leaking Russian invasion plans was trying to stop this...but it was too late. These things have a certain momentum or inertia. Putin thought he had the measure of Biden.
So...does President Biden have a share of the blame in "allowing" (<- via the signaling I mentioned above) Russia to think they could get away with this? Or, is it all Trump?
Again, I will stay away from any opinions on foreign domestic politics. I will say that I am heavily disappointed in the lack of support Germany is providing. Is that due to Scholtz? I have no idea...it could be far more complex and nuanced than "that guy is a Stasi wannabe" or whatever the complaints are against him.
Ditto Switzerland blocking ammo supplies. Is it one of cantons that is doing that? Shrug. All I know is that Switzerland thinks it is safe behind the mountains and that any future armament purchasers better think about how they will source their ammo and other logistics.
Should Macron be praised for the Ceasars? I don't know, but FRANCE is sending some good equipment.
If you look at my posts, I am very careful to point to the COUNTRY involved, not any individual. (Zelensky excepted, because, damn, talk about the right man at the right time.) I have tried to do the same with the US.
-
The opinions on domestic US politics are neither unanimous nor beneficial to this thread.
-
1 hour ago, DesertFox said:
That is one important consideration for usage in ukraine. AFAIK most bridges there allow 40 metric tons maximum. That is one of the reasons why Leo2A4 (55 metric tons) and M1A1 (57 metric tons) and even newer (and heavier) western tanks don´t make much sense, unless NATO runs out of T-72s which can be sent. ..
@desert fox, not picking on you specifically, but your post has the most tonnage information so it's a great place to start.
In civil engineering (no I'm not one), there are margins applied. They are usually on the order of 100%. (In some cases, up to 500%.)
In the West, a 40 ton bridge could certainly hold more. Would I send a 50 ton tank over a 40 ton bridge? Hell, yeah. I'd drive it. But, I'd only allow one at a time. That'd slow down a 50+ tank battalion at every bridge.
Now, given the corruption and standards of quality shown under the Soviet era, I can certainly see the problems with 50 ton tanks driving over Soviet-built 40 ton bridges.
Time for some bridge grogs to step in.
-
1 hour ago, Artkin said:
I think maybe something like T-90AM with the modernized ERA on the turret could probably stop it somewhat. Without ERA I dont think so. Who knows about Western MBTs, and how much better they could be after ERA slapped on them too. M1A2 TUSK 2 in CMBS weighs 63 tons. I think Leopard 2A6 might be a touch over that, and Challenger 2 is definitely over that. So it wouldn't be too outlandish to assume their turret armor might be a bit better or equal on the front, and could stand a chance too. I know for a fact the Western MBTs dont penetrate each other very quickly in CMSF2.
I don't understand what the "stick" part of this is. As far as I know this is my limited understanding of how apfsds works:
and nothing really stood out to me when looking at blueprints. Maybe the stick is on the bottom of the rod, above where the reusable primer would be?
The KF51 is supposed to be somewhat light at 59 tons despite the new gun. I wonder if they are aiming for a new approach, similar to CV90 which was designed with high operational/tactical mobility in mind.
Bold.
Yeah. Obviously, I don't know if the 130mm APFSDS round has a full-length rod or not. But, the "stick" is there in other rounds. There is a limit to length:diameter ratios, especially dependent upon the metal/alloy used and the planned impact velocities.
Here are some good images, showing how advances in metallurgy have allowed longer rods:
Edited to add: that 10:1 is old. I'm seeing research going as far as 20:1 Length:Diameter. So, don't go around quoting 10:1 at the bar.
-
31 minutes ago, Artkin said:
Wow thats one long rod. It's going to be really difficult to stop something moving that quick. I cant see any reason why we would ever need a caliber larger than 130mm if that's the size of it.
The rod is frequently supported by a "stick". So, just because the round is that long does not mean the rod is, as well.
(I think 10:1 length:diameter is currently what is used...for lots of reasons.)
The extra shell length allows for a LOT of extra powder.
I wonder what the muzzle velocity/muzzle energy will be?
-
17 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
Speaking of EW...
Here's the EDM4S: https://www.armedconflicts.com/Lithuanian-anti-drone-jammer-EDM4S-Sky-Wiper-portable-equipment-REW-t249674
EW is interesting...especially Russian use. Handheld jammers, like the EDM4S, are difficult to counter. However, they are similar to (early) MANPADs in that they are not kept turned on. They're only used AFTER a drone has been identified. (Manpads are limited by their IR targeting/seeker needing to be cooled, by boiling off cryogenics or using limited battery power.) The question remains...how would the jammer-user know when to use it?
Stand-off UAVs are undetectable without radar, IR, or staring focal arrays.
Russian area-jammers are useful to deny areas... It would be great if they start using them. Nothing is easier than guiding a missile onto an active transmitter. Targeting beacons make for simple solutions.
-
17 hours ago, cesmonkey said:
I didn't read that NYT article the other day complaining about the lack of visibility into Ukraine's military operations by US intelligence. That's because I'm not a NYT subscriber.
However, the NYT does offer a free podcast and today they looked at that same issue.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/13/podcasts/the-daily/ukraine-war-intelligence.html
The reporter's argument is that Ukraine should provide more information to the US in order for the US to know whether the aid they are providing is being properly used - and what is truly needed.I'm not sure I agree.
I disagree. (I did not read the article.) Any sharing of intelligence to the US would mean that intel would then be liable to be used for political purposes. Ukraine would have no control of it in that case and, if US domestic politics would benefit to Ukraine's detriment...guess which way the US politicians would decide?
-
Crimea and Donbas
These territories were seized by Russia and then the population (especially Crimea) shifted by importing Russians. (This is why borders matter.)
Now, if Ukraine regained these territories, there is nothing to prevent them from copying Russia: allowing Ukrainians to flood in while allowing Russian separatists to go to Russia.
Russia had 8 years to tilt the demographics. Let's do a poll of the territories 8 years after Ukraine regains their rightful borders. I'll bet it'll be pretty pro-Ukrainian.
Land is NOT people. The one is immutable, the other is mobile and moldable.
-
4 hours ago, Ultradave said:
Thanks. This is a good look at how the system works. The ultimate hipshoot weapon. Set up, fire, break down, all in a few minutes. That makes it very survivable from counter battery radar location. Your worry remains just if a drone has tracked you to a position and can get that data to a firing battery fast enough to react before you are gone. Possible, but challenging for the enemy.
Dave
Or, if you bivouac at the same location prior to trundling out to one of just a few firing sites, only to return to the same bivouac.
Mobility is only useful in this case if you do not create predictable patterns of behavior.
-
11 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:
Jomini gives the big picture.... (but you'll need to read the fine print in that big red box. Grab a coffee, or another drink, depending on your point on the globe)
Brother Jomini definitely ain't in the Collapse school.
Note 900 artillery pieces, which tracks with that 7:1 Ukrainian intel estimate. Mainly pointed at Sieverdonetsk.
....Now, about that bit where the RAF completes the capture of Sieverdonetsk in the next 24 - 72 hours.....
In spite of his SOF pedigree, Chuck Pf is a lot on the rah rah
side, so bread and salt here, but nice map.
He also approvingly reposted this clip from the street fighting.
****
EDIT: So I would humbly pronounce the entire Jomini thread essential reading for anyone following this board. Like his namesake, he tends to be on the conservative side, but he is making sense here in light of the current facts on the ground.
BUT, I will ask a fairly obvious question:
1. If the Russian effort rides pretty much entirely on heavy artillery right now, to the tune of about 900 tubes or launchers in the key sector; and
2. If drones are a real pain in the arse to shoot down right now, and can roam with near impunity, day and night, limited only by their time aloft.....
Where is that swarm of several thousand drones of all shapes and sizes, kamikaze and other, that will sniff out and neutralise these tubes, as well as their LOCs?
Or does the West need China in order to manufacture anything in bulk now?
.... And along those same lines, what's happened to the Bayraktars? They haven't all been shot down, that's definitely not the case. And aren't there some Gray Eagles quietly floating around? Hmm....
I mentioned earlier General Giap snookering the French master artillerists (and they were really good!) at Dien Bien Phu by bunkering in his guns on forward slopes, refusing to play the traditional game. By the same token, conventional tube on tube counterbattery work remains important, but it may not be the only game in town any more.
So could Sieverdonetsk be a giant trap, like DBP, luring all the first line RA artillery into massing so it can be whacked by some kind of massively scaled up Aerorozvidka (with a secure line to Nellis AFB)? Because that would be simply awesome!
As our @The_Capt hath taught us, the offence / defence equation is seriously out of balance right now -- a convergence of disruptive innovations, in Clayton Christiansen's sense -- and more Big Surprises are likely in store before this ball stops ricocheting around.
But the waaaaiting is the hardest part.
Russian artillery.
As I've stated (horn-tooting), their artillery MUST be attritted before Ukraine has a chance to successfully regain, and hold, its lost territory. Otherwise, Ukraine would just attack only to be pounded.
According to this site https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/karl.wikland/viz/RussianmilitarylossesinUkraine2022/RussianmilitarylossesinUkraine2022
...Russia has lost ~625 artillery "systems" (tube and rocket?) since they invaded Ukraine. We're about 100 days in, so let's just call that about 6 tubes a day. Further, let's stipulate Russia cannot replace what gets lost with new production or old war reserves.
In the Lysychansk (<- my spelling of Ukrainian cities is not great. I studied Russian language for a year and barely scraped by: not a strength. So, forgive any mistakes in that regard)...anyway, near that city, the above-stated ratio is 7:1 with Russia having 900 tubes. That puts Ukraine near 128 or so.
For artillery parity, purely based on numbers (not range, weight of fire, accuracy, etc.), that means Ukraine needs to eliminate about 772 tubes around there. At 6 per day, that's a bit over 4 months. And, that assumes no Ukrainian arty losses (in that area).
Obviously, there are a LOT of external factors that adjust that calculus. Ukraine needs longer-ranged systems, that are accurate, with ISR/spotting, and a relatively stable front, to enable them to attrit the Russians down. The 155L52 systems coming online are great for counter-battery work (gotta outrange the Russians to do so effectively). Long-range GMLRS would be better...especially with submunitions.
That is a simplistic comparison, but shows the amount of work needed to overcome the Russian artillery numbers.
-
25 minutes ago, sross112 said:
I don't speak or understand Russian so I have no take on the verbal part. I reviewed it several times and my conclusion is that it is either a training video or a video of a training area. If you look at the ground it is fairly dry and not a single bullet strike is seen. The grass is crushed down along the trails that each individual travels, biggest clue is the trail where the soldier rolls during the ambush. The other thinner trails could be dismissed as game trails, regular patrol routes, etc but the rolling trail clearly shows that the same movement has been done over that ground multiple times.
One part that confused me about being a training film or filmed training was the blast from the barrels of the shooting weapons. In the US we had to attach a BFA (blank firing adapter) to the muzzle in order for the M16 to cycle and I didn't see those. Further research shows that apparently the AK blanks will cycle without a BFA or a smaller one that lets most of the gas out where the one we used was basically a plug. So that explains seeing the blast from the firing weapons and no bullet strikes anywhere.
Bolded: the other benefit of the clamped BFA was the assurance that no round could exit a firearm equipped with one. So, an errant "live" round in a pile of blanks would not cause a casualty.
-
5 hours ago, Huba said:
Here's a proposal for system based on 12,7 mm rotary cannon. Thermal camera coupled with radar should probably eliminate most false positives. Modular platform should fit on a pickup truck. Prototype was tested during air-defence drills that are taking place on the Baltic shore right now.
(Last of my drone comments, I promise.
)
Anything that uses rotary 12.7mm has my vote.
Think of the opportunities to use it against non-aerial targets.
-
5 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:
Good info, thanks.
This is getting in @The_Capt's wheelhouse, but seems to me there's a serious mismatch at tactical level here today.
In the Sixties, you had Ryan Firebees and by the 70s variants on ALCMs, then stealth tech and Reapers, Predators, etc. for the GWOT. All very strategic level assets, crazy expensive and accordingly rare.
But you're saying here that a 250 USD Chinese drone that could be issued to and used by any rando rifle squad still needs a 3 million(?) missile or AAA system deployed to the front by a specialised formation to neutralise it! Wow. I mean, not saying you're wrong, but wow.
Bolded part. That's the question and that's why the laser systems are so attractive. Ignore the initial outlay. (Because the system is either fielded or it isn't.) What then is the per-shot cost? And, what is it's capability?
If it can shoot down anything from a small quadcopter to Predator drone to a mortar shell...and do it endlessly (given electrical generation capability), then, yeah, the cost per engagement is just pennies.
Ditto the electronic jammers that cause drones to land where they are.
Using directed energy systems (lasers, focused electromagnetic waves) is the future of counter-drone units.
-
5 hours ago, hcrof said:
This is actually quite a hard problem to solve atm:
They are too small to hit with unguided fire
They don't have a big enough IR signature for a stinger type missile
If you tune your radar to be able to spot them you will be overwhelmed by false positives from birds and ground clutter
It looks like missiles like starstreak are designed with drones in mind, which is why they have a complicated semi-manual aiming system, and AAA or even "mad minute" small arms fire can just about manage, but they are far from reliable and it's easy enough to just send another drone.
I can see a lot more light AAA and starstreak type missiles in the near future as a counter, or even anti-drone drones!
Edit: and lasers - everyone is going for lasers like crazy to shoot down drones (among other things) but they aren't quite there yet
All good points, but you missed the first two:
1. Should the forces in question be concerned...at that time...if there is a drone monitoring them? Meaning, what forces, where, and when, should be in a drone-countermeasures posture?
2. Once that force is determined to be in an anti-drone posture, you've got to FIND the drone, if any.
Only then will the rest of the points you've made come into play.
Steps 1 and 2 are non-trivial.
-
58 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
Ok you got to back that one up...please. I mean that is one helluva story but it sounds like myth.
Edit - and I want it to be true.
I literally stopped what I was doing when I read that, copied/pasted/searched, and was about to post a "WTF?" comment.
Thank you for doing so...politely.
-
"Fog Eating Snow". Yes, the Ukraine nibbles and bits approach is working. But, they will absolutely need to continue to attrit Russian artillery if they are to win and regain their pre-2014 borders (I include the Crimea). To do this, they need long-range artillery especially MLRS. ATACMs would be nice.
300km range would allow Ukraine to set the launchers back in their "safe" areas and launch against identified Russian batteries (whether inside Ukraine's borders or firing from inside Russia. Shrug: that's Russia's choice.).
Regardless if Ukraine gains the 300km+ guided weaponry, they need to out-range and use effective counter-battery fire to eliminate Russian ranged weapons. THAT, and only that, will allow them to advance to (and maintain) their borders.
As far as Crimea: destroy the Kerch bridge; interdict any shipping trying to resupply Crimea; pressure the Perekop Isthmus. Make Sevastopol a maritime graveyard for the Russian navy. Then move in.
-
7 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
And yes, we need to wargame this out. I have some ideas on how to do that
Steve
^^^
Sig-line material if I've ever seen it!
-
Using "Q ships" for MLRS or Brimstones would then open EVERY civilian vehicle up as a legitimate target for the enemy. That may be acceptable...or not.
Distributing MLRS onto many platforms would leave open the large question of distributing targeting information and allocating munitions to the correct platform. Certainly solvable, but it'd require robust networking.
-
15 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
Yup, I've made a note of this a while ago. This is not something that current TacAI takes into consideration, but it should for really crappy crews. A more experienced and motivated one would have more confidence that they could do something evasive, even if it turns out not to be the case.
Steve
A few thoughts on this:
1. Currently, AFVs know precisely when an ATGM is fired at them and from where.
2. Currently, the game is a bit prone to under-model artillery effects against AFVs (this has been discussed ad nauseum).
Any adjustment would have to address the above two issues...AND ensure that the TacAI does not know the difference between a 155 landing 15 meters away or an NLAW that hit a tree. The crew would just know that there was an almighty "bang" and they're still alive.
-
6 hours ago, FancyCat said:
If Russia didn't have nukes, sure, I could see a situation like the Persian Gulf patrols. But....it does. So NATO is not going to risk nuclear confrontation and war. Plus commercial shipping won't go into the Black Sea unless a country seizes their ships or somehow legally forces them to work in the Black Sea.
This points out a recurring theme: because Russia has nuclear weapons, they cannot be pushed too hard to comply with international norms of behavior.
I wonder if anyone in
Europethe West is drawing a lesson from this vis a vis Iran's continuing quest to gain nuclear weapons? As insane as Putin seems to be, I cannot imagine how Iran's leadership will act once they gain that type of leverage.Edited: because it's not just European politicians that seem to have lost sight of the dangers of nuclear proliferation.
-
For those that follow such things, I have cultivated a certain image of, shall we say, "nonchalance" towards the lives of my pixeltruppen.
I never thought anyone would take it seriously, let alone try to replicate it. Then Putin showed me that I had been mistaken.
Think of the opportunities to use it against non-aerial targets.
How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
What an easy way for Russia to "erase" some Ukrainian POWs.