panzermartin
-
Posts
2,300 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by panzermartin
-
-
37 minutes ago, FancyCat said:
There's a reason why Western attitudes towards Russia hardened after mobilization, cause domestically the regime has only grown stronger. No one is launching a coup against Putin.
This alone is a very bad outcome that contradicts the assumptions that russians are losing trust in the establishment. And from the comments I'm reading in more "civilized" war RU. forums they seem cold blooded, realist and determined about this war. And they seem to take a pride in that they are facing a NATO coalition in disguise, while still moving forward. We'll see if the coming Leopard counterattack shakes this determination.
If we could convince them their lives would be better under western sphere before going to WW3 with them, it would be nice...
-
And to add, as I'm reading after the overnight shelling of shebekino in the Belgorod area , the russian governor says for them to be safe they must annexed Kharkov region entirely.
Yes, russian nationalists will be happy to see the indifferent population to feel more threatened.
-
13 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
The threat from NATO psychosis is real, but that is only half of what Russia suffers from. The other half is the belief that they can win a war with NATO. So far NATO hasn't done anything directly, so Russians are in a bit of a quandary because the direct threat from NATO isn't there, but a direct threat from Ukraine is and it is beating the snot out of Russia.
The other threat Russians fear is the central government losing control of the economy and civil order. They fear a return to the 1990s more than they fear NATO. The economic strains are evident everywhere in Russia, the crack down on civil liberties as well. I don't think many Russians are comfortable where things are headed. Having drone strikes in/around Moscow is only going to further reduce confidence that Putin has things under control.
So yeah, from a psychological standpoint this is a good move by Ukraine.
Steve
I will be able to certainly answer this in the coming months! But yours could be a good reading of different Russians mindset.
Although I think a good portion of their population is already aware of the NATO involvement in the UA operations. Not sure what they are thinking of these raids. But maybe we underestimate that like all countries Russia has a large base of primitive nationalism that could trigger things and the rest of population to the wrong direction. They are still hardwired to contest any western threat like the numerous times it has happened in the past. I'm thinking this war isn't much different than 19th century and 20th century wars, it's the same imperialistic bras de fer, and Crimea in particular is a precious jewel that has seen Ukrainian troops fighting along German, French, British forces against the different versions of the russian empire.
-
But If there is a psychosis in their hearts and minds of average russians about the threat from their western borders, these attacks hitting home will only reinforce it. Not that Ukraine doesn't have the absolute right to do so. An eye for an eye...But do we want to fuel that psychosis more? The last thing Ukraine wants is to mobilize the more developed russian oblasts. So far Russia has been exchanging their worst (convicts, etc) for the best Ukraine has to offer (students, educated proffesionals etc)
Anyway, chances are this isnt a wider bomber Harris plan but an effort to distract Russia ahead of the real offensive.
-
2 minutes ago, Kraft said:
What a quality assessment.
Thanks
-
With the unlimited ammount of material Ukraine is getting from all over the globe they can easily do this everyday if they like.
-
On 5/14/2023 at 9:31 PM, billbindc said:
He almost certainly will lose. The question is whether or not he accepts the loss and has the power to get away with it. Istanbul and Ankara aren’t counted yet.
Just a reminder that not everything we certainly, firmly believe in this forum turns out right. Erdogan won the turkish elections once again.
-
Not very good news from Turkey, Erdogan will probably win the elections. I had the impression the dynamics were not in his favor. Do you think Russians could have played a role here... Another few years of agony in the aegean.
-
If the planes were on their way home the friendly fire scenario would be more plausible. But apparently they were not.
-
Could be a first hint, UA is trying a Stalingrad maneuver to push around the flanks of the Wagnerites in the city , knowing their are manned propably by lower quality Roma... Er russian conscripts.
But I don't think it's possible for them to advance more against the artillery and aviation russian forces amassed currently in the area. They are not spread between hundreds of kms like in Kharkov in the summer.
Or maybe the main south offensive starts with a bold distraction move in Bakhmut?
-
No tanks and no BMPs either. Even the T-14s are in the front?
-
Victory day parade in Moscow is on, spot something unusual? I think a bit shorter this time and didn't that many tanks/vehicles, or I missed them
-
And now I just realized that WW2 Sturmoviks were probably more succesful than the modern russian Jets in hunting APCs and MBTs.
Anyway, we dont have much info on this yet, it would be interesting after the war to collect data on what the russian air force actually managed to hit in the frontlines.
-
37 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
A quick note about Russia's past successes in using its air power...
Whether it be in the northern Donbas or during the Kherson fighting, the defining feature was attacking relatively static and easily spotted Ukrainian positions. Bridges, concentrations of armor, perhaps a key building in use for hours or days, etc. Even when successful, these attacks were not decisive in any way. Neither was Russian artillery, and I'd bet it was far more effective than air power.
As history as our guide, the best case for Russian air power is that it slows things down a bit and causes Ukraine to suffer more casualties than it otherwise would. But I do not think there is any indication that it will do more than that.
One of the reasons to come to this conclusion is the lack of evidence that Russia can hit anything that is on the move. Even tactically behind the front. This is the sort of interdiction that air power is supposed to be good at and yet Russia's airforce doesn't seem up to the challenge (we've discussed in detail why that is, so no surprise to us). As long as Ukraine can largely move without being hit, Russia is at a major disadvantage. Especially once Ukraine achieves a breakthrough somewhere. Because unlike Russia's track record of generally lethargic advances (there are a couple of exceptions), Ukraine has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to exploit openings rapidly and in force.
Steve
Unfortunately for the russians, this seems to be mostly true. The lack of real CAS ability in coordination with the troops below. Otherwise counterattacks like those in the summer wouldnt be a walk in the park if RU could effectively employ its numerous aircrafts effectively in ground role. Maybe we'll see something different now or maybe not.
There is one exception perhaps, I have seen some videos from attack helicopters using their Vikhr missiles from a distance on moving UKR vehicles. if I were the russian commander I would invest a lot in this to counter defense lines penetrations, with the hope that advance elements of the attacker are usually ahead of any AA coverage.
-
Regarding the recent trench videos, not sure if this was posted. I found the analysis interesting.
-
3 hours ago, Haiduk said:
Drone unit Code 9.2 of 3rd mech.battalion of 92nd mech. brigade eliminates Russians with high precise bombing during the fight for position near Khromove
Soldiers of 92nd brigade claen up probably the same trench
Intense and disturbing footage. You can see mutilated and beheaded soldiers, the drones were very accurate (or artillery before them).
I wonder, are these trenches dug in by Ukrainian army? Or did Russians really had the time to dug in so extensively in a fluid and exposed environment on the western Bakhmut outskirts.
I'm again not surprised by how little support russian forward troops receive some times. They seem to get hammered for quite some time, and then left to die without arty/aviation /drone /armor relief in an area that's supposed to be of reach for the numerous russian assets in the area. Must be that Wagner dug in and die "technique" or completely cut off troops.
-
10 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
It is probable that there are at least two separate problems here:
1. The bomb landed in the wrong spot. Whether it was pilot error, mechanical failure (premature drop), or a defect in the bomb's glide path are all possibilities here.
2. The bomb did not detonate. This could be because the fuse wasn't armed (related to above or ground crew mistake) or it was defective.
With Russia's history of problems it's really impossible to say what exactly happened. The range of their incompetence, sloppy manufacturing standards, and the age of the equipment involved means everything is possible.
Steve
Yes it could be a combination of all thes above . I made the assumption because it seems lately they release these away from UA AA fire , even from inside their own borders?
-
11 minutes ago, Haiduk said:
I doubt reason in gliding kits. Many usual FABs had problems with fuses - there were many photos of unexploded FAB-500, for example in Chernihiv oblast and near Avdiivka. Old bombs...
I understand fuse malfunctions are common with those and other bombs bombs but it's strange they fall like that in friendly ground.
-
1 hour ago, DesertFox said:
50% fuze failure rate for russian bombs? Belgorod.
Could these be a failure of the newly introduced gliding kit for older bombs? Otherwise it's strange it's the second one falling in friendly territory.
-
6 hours ago, NamEndedAllen said:
1. What countries recognize Crimea to be within the international borders of Ukraine?
2. What countries recognize Crimea to be within the borders of Russia?
BIG HINTS. Also from Wikipedia:
1. Nineteen. Guess which ones, and how many are democracies vs dictatorships
2. One hundred and twelve. Guess how many of the most democratically governed nations in the world are included.
19 still better than 1. We are forgetting Turkey, a precious NATO member that 50yrs ago invaded and occupied northern Cyprus in a Donbas scenario type intervention "to protect the Turkish population" .
Who Recognised Northern Cyprus?In 1983, a Turkish-controlled area located on the northern section of the island declared its independence, calling itself the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). Turkey has been the only country in the world to recognize the TRNC, however.Who talks about northern Cyprus anymore? It's like nothing ever happened, It's gone for the Greek cypriots. -
41 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
Dehumanizing the enemy is part of the way the Human mind convinces itself it's OK to kill. Glorification is a way to live with the results better.
Yes thats a very good reason also. Takes away a lot of weight. I understand this. For the remote poster outside of this conflict I might feel he deserves less excuse.
Ukrainians though have all the reasons to feel like that, I admit, after all the war was imposed on them. Its not only them, there are also pro russian sites where the comments are very disturbing under videos and makes you wonder how many rats are out there. This board has been very restrained in contrast, depsite also having ukrainian posters. I still think I need to skip reading comments in twitter and elsewhere because I think its mental health deteriorating.
-
4 hours ago, The_Capt said:
That theory has a lot of issues. First off, there have been questions as to its overall validity and application in WW2 itself. Did it take into account the PTO or non/low-US theatres such as Burma? Was the phenomenon isolated or more generalized?
Then there is context. In WW2 you had masses of US “citizen soldiers”. These were people who had been living normal lives who got suddenly pulled into this war en masse. Was the phenomenon of “not shooting” endemic to them alone? While forces that had been in the war longer or more intimately involved in their own countries did not see this happen. For example, I sincerely doubt members of the French Resistance or partisans in Eastern Europe were avoiding lethal force at a high rate.Did US forces in combat see their “murder aversion” change over time? Warfare throughout history demonstrates that it gets pretty normal to kill, pretty fast.
How does this phenomenon stack up against other wars in history? Am I to believe that Roman legions were only “stabbing to kill” 20% of the time? How about the Mongols?
Then the modern era. We suddenly went from high percentages of not shooting to kill to murderous lust from WW2 to Vietnam? I know in modern wars that we did not see mass aversion to lethal force - quite the opposite, we had to rein it in. So what changed? Was it sugar, tv and video games? Or was the initial study flawed?
From my own experience. 19-20 year old kids amped up an adrenaline - scared and angry at the same time, will go from “0 to Murder” in seconds and sleep soundly that night. It usually only takes one person to start shooting first and then the rest jump in. The challenge is to get them to stop shooting, or get them shooting at the right thing. That is why we spend so much time training them. I have never seen a widespread phenomenon of an aversion to apply lethal force, from any side, of the wars I have been involved in.
Finally given our biological make up, this theory also does not compute. All primates (with only one or two exceptions) are murderous brutal little monsters. Our closest evolutionary relatives are some of the most vicious creatures in nature. The idea that mankind was somehow blessed with a higher morale standard is laughable given our history. We impose a lot of programming and frameworks just to get us to not kill each other in a peacetime setting, let alone open warfare.
I am not sold on the whole idea to be honest.
Good points and I have asked myself some of these questions. We had bloody merciless war since ancient times, with soldiers ripping the guts of people with pointy things, have we really changed at all? I try to resist the idea that war is implemented in human nature, but sometimes I can't find a good counter argument.
Still, I admit I dont feel very comfortable with the edited morbid videos, the music even if I understand its for raising morale or propaganda. Apart from the smiling Nazis posing after executions, I don't think there was a lot of intention from each side to ridicule their victims or glorify the kill back then. Or perhaps it deliberately went less documented.
-
I've watched quite a few of those close action videos posted from both sides and I'm coming to the conclusion that modern soldiers have become even less densesitized firing at the enemy than what was described in the book "on killing". Some of you might have read about it. There was a theory that in WW2 most soldiers didn't fire their guns at all or didn't shoot to kill but mostly injure the enemy. That changed the coming decades, particularly from wiki :
"As a result of Marshall's work, modern military training was modified to attempt to override this instinct, by:
- using man-shaped targets instead of bullseye targets in marksmanship practice
- practicing and drilling how soldiers would actually fight
- dispersing responsibility for the killing throughout the group
- displacing responsibility for the killing onto an authority figure, i.e., the commanding officer and the military hierarchy (see the Milgram experiment)
By the time of the United States involvement in the Vietnam War, says Grossman, 90 % of U.S. soldiers would fire their weapons at other people.
He also says the act of killing is psychologically traumatic for the killer, even more so than constant danger or witnessing the death of others.
Grossman further argues that violence in television, movies and video games contributes to real-life violence by a similar process of training and desensitization."
I know the brutality and hate of this conflict may have surpassed any training needed to reach those levels and not sure if those videos represent the general rule but there is something in this war that I haven't seen before. From that video with the russian drone dropping a grenade to an injured Ukranian pleading for his life to the close Call of duty action trench clearing videos I find it disturbing to see perfect killing machines, or find that people from both sides enjoy the video clips with techno and dance music.
I mean, how normal is that?
-
7 minutes ago, Howler said:
You really need to allow yourself growth and accept nuance in your world view. It's not always US bad - other side good.
I'm far, faaar from that. I'm quite modest. But sometimes this board has the exact opposite world view. A fairytelish one if we remind ourselves how many times we make LOTR comparisons here drawing a distinct line between the enlighted of this world (West ) vs the orcs, russians, chinese whatever.
It's a mentality heading for a total clash of the two worlds, maybe I'm naive enough thinking we can prevent it.
How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
Oh yes, flattening of Dresden did so much to shorten the war. Not.
The Germans had only themselves to blame for but it's so sad to walk today in those cities, see the old parts that survived and wonder how the rest would be otherwise. Berlin, Leipzig, Dresden, Hamburg, Cologne and others... At this certain moment walking through their streets I could only think "what a justified crime the Anglo-Americans committed".