poesel

Sorry, but I don't get how this is different from how leadership currently works in the game? Or do you mean that leadership should be split in 'officer leadership' & 'NCO leadership' modifiers, which come into play when C2 is cut?

Three bits on the economic side of things. The outlook is not so good for Ukraine (all in German) A report on a tile factory in Slovyansk: https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/parlamentswahlen-wirtschaftliche-lage-der-ukraine-ist-100.html A general report about Ukraine's financial situation: https://www.n-tv.de/wirtschaft/Ukraine-droht-den-Krieg-finanziell-zu-verlieren-article23631060.html More numbers: https://www.gtai.de/de/trade/ukraine/wirtschaftsumfeld/finanzhilfen-kommen-nur-langsam-in-der-ukraine-an-847876 When this war ends, it won't be Ukrainians marching into Moscow. So, who will force Russia to pay for all this? Keeping up the sanctions is the only lever, and I'm not sure if it's long enough.

The question was, 'would they ... if their world collapsed?'. I think, that is a 'yes'. If Russia would catastrophically collapse (and Iran's regime still exists at that point), giving WMDs to them would be a last inconsequential (for Russia) middle finger to the world. But I'm quite sure that several agencies have that scenario at the ready in their cupboards.

Ok, what piece of equipment is shown here in this historical enactment? And where is this museum?

Yes. Why not? Yes to all of that. Lasers will have their uses, but there are physical restrictions to energy storage that won't make them small or cheap in the medium future. Since lasers systems did not make it to the battlefield, yet, no one has had to defend against them. As others have already noted, there are several rather simple & cheap things you can do against lasers. Won't make you impervious, but ups the power requirements on the lasers side. Then multiply the target numbers with a swarm (including even cheaper decoys) and your energy requirements skyrocket. The first drone to be hit tells the rest, and everyone goes into crazy evasion mode. More problems. I'm a bit guessing, but a laser shot is probably highly detectable with the right sensors. And the ray is literally pointing backwards, directly at the gun. CB will love that. I think the good ole kinetic kill will be the mainstay for a while.

Not - IRIS-T is actually the name of the rocket. The system's name is 'IRIS-T SL'. And the AA version of the rocket differs from the surface-to-air version, so I doubt that there are a lot. But it is at least about half the price of an AIM-120.

Intercepting anything between Russia and Iran will be quite hard since they share a border across the Caspian Sea.

I think this infographic (not mine) shows the effect a tactical nuke would have:

Maybe there is an "off plank"?

So, it was well worth the effort, no? Actions like this are for internal consumption, not for the effect on the enemy. I guess a thermobaric explosion would have pushed or pulled some of the rail cars or the other vehicles on the road. None of that happened. I'm in the missile camp, but I can't explain two things: Why did nobody see or hear it coming down? Why weren't the Russians not at least trying to shoot it down? Which should have been visible, too?

I don't think this plays any role. Never heard of it. Also, our Nazis like the Russians in Russia, not those at home... Fanatics follow orders 100%. But sometimes it is better to run away from certain situations and disobey the orders. You lose that crucial piece of self initiative with fanatic troops, and thus I never buy them (except as subjects for weapons tests ).

'hundreds' protesting in a democracy of 80 millions is basically nothing. About 10% of the population adhere to far right ideas which, in Germany, include Nazis, Pro-Russians, Anti-Vaxxers, Qanon and the like. That is a potential group of 8 million people. It would be a noticeable movement with 5 digit protestors and I would worry with 6 digits. TL;DR: there are idiots everywhere In a way, yes. 'Unwilling' may be a bit harsh. I'd go for 'has not realized it is war' No, sorry, but that is really wrong. Again, speaking for Germany, this is a minority of about 15% (10% extreme right, 5% extreme left). Of course, no one is happy about energy cost, but a discussion about stopping help for Ukraine to fix that issue simply does not exist. The one and only reason we do not send more weapons, is fear of WWIII (don't discuss that with me...) The GDR was occupied by the Russians and every mayor decision had to go through them. But for most of the part, the East-Germans did the occupation unto themselves (and effectively, of course...). I guess, very generally, the Russians were the least hated in the GDR of all East-Block countries. A lot more changed in West-Germany after the 3rd Reich than did in the East. That difference is still very visible after 30 years.

No need to google Steel will get soft (or forgeable) at around 1150 - 1250 °C. Melting begins at around 1400 °C. That amount of heat has surely gotten into the rebars, especially since it burned quite long. The structural integrity of this bridge is toast.

I'm waiting for that, too. But as for Germany, there is currently nothing. The strikes on NS1&2 didn't faze anyone because we weren't getting gas from there anyway. The railway thing...., well - a 3h outage with the Deutsche Bahn is quite a common happenstance. Nothing new. So don't count on public outrage, yet.

I guess Russia is trying to up the ante: on Saturday, two railway communication cables were cut in the span of a few hours. One in Berlin, the other in the Ruhr area. One was the backup of the other. This has led to 3h ours outage of all rail traffic in northern Germany. You need intimate knowledge of that communication network to know of the cables, their location and their interdependency. I can't think of no other actor than Russia who has both means and reason. The other thing just happened today: It is not a difficult guess that Russia starts to go after European infrastructure. Personally, I think that will backfire - as have most of Russia's plans lately.

I'm retracting my argument against a missile strike. I said, that a missile strike would have been against the arched part of the bridge and not the flat one. As a precondition, I assume that the target of the attack was to destroy as much as possible (rail & road) of the bridge. An arch has much more resistance versus pressure from above. The forces from the explosion would be led into the base of the arch, which is designed to withstand a lot of pressure. The deck of the road is also bent outwards, so it is more unlikely to cave in comparison to a flat surface. Also, the rail track is on the same height as the bridge at the arch. An explosion could only hit the top of the rail track. The rail track is designed to withstand lateral force (the weight of the train) but not excessive horizontal force. Put together, it would totally make sense to attack at the junction between flat and arched part. There is the weakest part of the bridge, since there will be some horizontal forces from the arch going into the flat part. You can attack both lanes from the top and the rail track from the side. Hitting the fuel train was absolutely intentional in the hope of further fire damage. I guess that, whoever planned it, is now a bit disappointed that only one lane caved in and none of the fuel cars toppled over to further damage the other track. Still, impressive planning and success!

This is a comment from another forum, and as an engineer I think this is totally correct: The rail bridge was engulfed in a high intensity fire for hours. This will most likely have compromised the steel inside the concrete beams. Those bridge elements usually consist of prestressed concrete, meaning concrete that contains steel cables under tension when poured. This gives the elements stability and rigidity. In a high intensity fire those cables heat up which leads to the tension being released. Even after cooling, the tension is gone. The elements might look ok, but their load baring capabilities are most likely severely compromised. TL;DR: rail bridge is ****ed. Good luck sending heavy trains over it Edit: just found out I don't have to add the **** myself

Ok, I amend that to 'standing or very slow'. Hmm, maybe it was that slow because of heavy winds? That would be an explanation. But that would make the timing of the attack even more complicated. I meant the railing on the right. That would be the far side of the explosion, if I'm not mistaken.

I'd like to talk about the train a bit. First, it was standing there. If it had been moving, it would have stopped quite a bit behind the event. Why is a train standing in the middle of the Kerch Bridge? I don't think that was a scheduled stop, so someone must have made it to. Second, why did none of the train cars topple over? They don't even look derailed. Why would a blast that blew off a bridge piece from the piers not even push one car from the tracks? Third, there is this picture: https://twitter.com/RoksolanaKrim/status/1579051106235166721/photo/3 How did the guard rails on the far side of the train get bent like that? They would be in the shadow of the train. I have no explanation for that.

If I had one (1) missile to spend on the Kerch bridge, I would have aimed at the part with the longest bridge span (the 'bridgy' part of the bridge) not at an ordinary part. The longest span is more susceptible to damage and more difficult to repair. That would be my one argument against the missile theory - it would have landed somewhere else.

Thank you and everyone else who answered. I seem to have hit perfectly the lull before the bridge blew up! In comparison, the numbers from Germany (from: https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/37985/umfrage/verbrauch-von-erdgas-in-deutschland-nach-abnehmergruppen-2009/) 37% industrial 38% residential (from this: 31% local & 7% district heating) 13% commercial 12% electric power 0.2% transportation

(the numbering is off due to quoting - Germany is 8th) A bit off-topic, but at 4x the size, the US uses 10x the gas compared to Germany. I thought we were squandering the stuff. What is the US doing with it?

Depends. If the most (by far) common reason for retirement for a piece of equipment is 'old age' (at least for European armies in the last 70 or so years), then a capacity of 'a few a year' is more than enough to replace stuff lost to accidents. OTOH if you build an assembly line that can do 100s or 1000s a year, run it for a month and then mothball it - your taxpayers will kill you.

I think that was rather a reference to H.P. Lovecraft and this guy: https://lovecraft.fandom.com/wiki/Yog-Sothoth Since the center of gravity of the whole gun assembly is probably directly over the wheels, there is not much force going into the barrel. Mostly from the drag from the wheels, which is in line with the barrel. That is a direction a pipe can handle well. Also, not much of a momentum for the same reason. The only input here is drag difference from the wheels. But the length of the lever for this is in proportion to the length of the gun very small, so small momentum. It may be a bit reckless to pull a gun by the barrel, but it is actually quite clever. I can't imagine the ridicule the engineer that first thought of it had to go through.

The biggest hint that there will be no offensive from Zaporizhia is, that the Russians know about it. At least not now. Let the Russians mount their defenses there. As soon as Kherson falls and UAF threatens to cross the Dnepr, the Russians will have to move forces westwards. Then the offensive comes.