fireship4
-
Posts
493 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by fireship4
-
-
16 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:
the small calibre HE used by this APC clearly isn't effective
It's hard to pin down what's what in the video, it's not for sure that the clips of the BTR are from the same engagement. There are a few explosions, a lot of tracer, and a lot of dust puffs around the trench.
If it was the same engagement, then the impacts are perhaps from the coax, as they are too frequent for the rate of fire the cannon is shown using (the article's second video shows it capable of a higher rate). If they are 30mm then most of them are duds or haven't armed.
The explosions could be 30mm, they looked a little big, but without more footage it's hard to say more than that guy better have ear protection, and has a set of balls requiring a gun-case when not at the front.
-
Quote
Kadyrov is very bad...
Surely Chechnya would become iffy if he kicked the bucket...
and
Dear The War Zone, thank you for a picture on which we can base our future tracer mods, compensating of course for the camera exposure, which we will glean from metadata, and that right soon:
Quote
Video available in the article: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/incredible-video-of-soldier-in-ukrainian-trench-totally-unfazed-by-withering-fire
-
'A Critique of Realism' (using John Mearsheimer as an exemplar of the school) posted by Kraut:
Quote -
7 hours ago, billbindc said:
Would 100 aircraft be remotely enough to materially change anything on the ground? Their PGMS that are left aren't particularly P or G and their pilots are going to be flying for their lives given Ukraine's air defenses.
What about on the other side? There has been talk over the last week since Zelenskyy visited the UK about providing 100 Eurofighter Typhoons to Ukraine - they would seem to be Tranche 1, lacking compatibility with the MBDA Meteor.
https://www.forces.net/ukraine/typhoons-not-best-fighter-jet-send-ukraine-expert-says
-
City control map via Wikipedia:
Quote
-
New episode of In Moscow's Shadows is available (https://feeds.buzzsprout.com/1026985.rss), and I thought I'd share an interview with Michael Kofman from 10 days ago as the source wasn't known to me: https://feeds.acast.com/public/shows/lockdowntv-with-freddie-sayers.
-
25 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said:
The first documented use of tank smoke launcher?
The second by a Russian tank that I remember, in this case combined with engine generated smoke.
-
14 minutes ago, Taranis said:
"Ukrainian soldiers during an exercise on the border with Belarus, February 3, 2023. VIACHESLAV RATYNSKYI / REUTERS"
Can they stop it with the Wehrmacht markings? You can still fight the Russians.
-
3 hours ago, Beleg85 said:
but in turn I put the cross on War in Ukraine channel long time ago- creator displayed rather limited knowledge of country and its people.
I also wanted to made "black list" of accounts that are often cited but are not believeable
I like the WiU channel, he seems to know the towns and cities in Russia and Ukraine pretty well from what I've seen, and will often deliver interesting asides. He has his idiosyncrasies, but I like him as another perspective.
I forgot to mention Perun (it was just a list of what I use regularly, by no means exhaustive or the only places worth visiting). He is very good in general and popular enough that I'm sure no-one here is unaware of him. Not perfect of course - he makes the odd shaky argument or doesn't get at an underlying system or ideology well enough, perhaps releasing a video without enough of a useful conceptual model, but certainly worth watching, and he obviously does his research. Quite impressive that someone with apparently no background in the subject can produce such work via making contacts and reading papers.
A blacklist (with reasons) is an idea, it would be more useful in cases where the outlet or individual is evidenced to be propagandising for the other side. A source thread might be nice, here posts are lost in time, like tears in rain.
-
In addition to my regular briefings, which include the podcasts In Moscow's Shadows, War on the Rocks, and Geopolitics Decanted, relevant articles from The War Zone, a look through the twitter feeds of Kamil Galeev, @wartranslated, @WarMonitor3 and @DefMon3, and the daily briefing/occasional deeper dive on the War in Ukraine channel (do not start with the Jan 31st edition, the man refuses to clear his throat), I thought I'd promote something I've been more into recently: Vlad Vexler's channel, for it's insight into various Russian topics and their relation to the war. It has a nice way of linking a previous video at the end of each piece that leads you through his work. The more casual Vlad Vexler Chat occasionally has a long form Q&A.
-
2 hours ago, Anonymous_Jonze said:
Craziest combat footage I've seen thus far. International Legion cornered Spetznaz in a building after they dismounted their BMP.
I had been waiting for this video. Brave men, but personally I would not want to be anywhere near a volunteer unit like this. I am willing to be corrected, but I assume any regular infantry, let alone an instructor, would have a heart attack looking at a house being cleared like this. Eventually a tank was brought up to demolish it after the fact - something that I assume would have been a preferable first option, and that either circumstance or lack of training led to them going in.
I can see an argument that being close and throwing grenades in is better than being in an adjacent building if you don't have enough firepower, but surely even that would be dangerous if they have it set up right inside (I can imagine a second perimeter of sandbags inside, holes through the outer wall which are easier to see out than in, etc).
As to the artillery strike - they had been in the area for a while I think, which may have been enough, but I wouldn't be surprised if the occupants of the building called it in when it seemed all was lost or as the only hope for a breakout.
Hopefully more thorough training can be provided to these volunteer groups, so that their skills and co-ordination match their courage and selflessness.
-
3 hours ago, Huba said:
It seems that there's no German blockade for other countries to send Leo2. I assume they will be OK with selling spare parts to the other EU operators too. Ideally they'd at least agree to continue the Ringtausch, but on Leo for Leo basis, or at least sold some of the tanks that are in reserve/ belong to the industry to fill up the ranks in countries agreeing to participate in the Leo Consortium. In any case, an important step forward:
This has been posted twice above, but I want to highlight it again - this seems like significant good news? Or is it one wing of the government representing one party's position which may then be overruled by Scholz?
-
A thread on GLSDB by @COUPSURE via @DEFMON3:
-
1 hour ago, Twisk said:
Sorry again for using reddit for posts
It's only a problem if they auto-play. If they do, they should instead be posted as a link (there is an option for this).
-
https://cmmodsiii.greenasjade.net/ is the site I am referring to. I understand there is a cmmods IV (https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/cm-mod-warehouse/), and I think the idea was to move the content over there, but the former is still the only place you can get things like HQS 5.0, and now it seems to have been compromised or abandoned: there is cyrillic and casino ads all about. Is the admin aware?
-
2 hours ago, Butschi said:
They are elected to represent the people.
If I may, an excerpt from https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2016/01/31/from-the-archives-the-open-society-and-its-enemies-revisited
QuoteProportional representation
Such are the theoretical differences between the old and the new theories. As an example of the practical difference between the theories, I propose to examine the issue of proportional representation.The old theory and the belief that the rule of the people, by the people, and for the people constitutes a natural right, or a divine right, form the background of the usual argument in favour of proportional representation. For if people rule through their representatives, and by majority votes, then it is essential that the numerical distribution of opinion among the representatives mirrors as closely as possible that which prevails among those who are the real source of legitimate power: the people themselves. Everything else will he not only grossly unfair but against all the principles of justice.
This argument collapses if the old theory is given up, so that we can look, more dispassionately, and perhaps without much prejudice, at the inescapable (and possibly unintended) practical consequences of proportional representation. And these are devastating.
First of all, proportional representation confers, even if only indirectly, a constitutional status on political parties which they would otherwise not attain. For I can no longer choose a person whom I trust to represent me: I can choose only a party. And the people who may represent the party are chosen only by the party. And while people and their opinions always deserve the greatest respect, the opinions adopted by parties (which are typically instruments of personal advancement and of power, with all the chances for intrigue which this implies) are not to be identified with ordinary human opinions: they are ideologies.
In a constitution that does not provide for proportional representation, parties need not be mentioned at all. They need not be given official status. The electorate of each constituency sends its personal representative to the chamber. Whether he stands alone, or whether he combines with some others to form a party, is left to him. It is an affair he may have to explain and defend to his electorate.
His duty is to represent the interests of all those people whom he represents to the best of his ability. These interests will in almost all cases be identical with those of all the citizens of the country, of the nation. These are the interests he must pursue to the best of his knowledge. He is personally responsible to persons.
This is the only duty and the only responsibility of the representative that must be recognised by the constitution. If he considers that he has also a duty to a political party, then this must be due solely to the fact that he believes that through his connection with that party he can do his primary duty better than without the party. Consequently it is his duty to leave the party whenever he realises that he can do his primary duty better without that party, or perhaps with a different party.
All this is done away with if the constitution of the state incorporates proportional representation. For under proportional representation the candidate seeks election solely as the representative of a party, whatever the wording of the constitution may be. If he is elected, he is elected mainly, if not solely, because he belongs to, and represents, a certain party. Thus, his main loyalty must be to his party, and to the party’s ideology; not to people (except, perhaps, the leaders of the party).
It can therefore never be his duty to vote against his party. On the contrary, he is morally bound to the party as whose representative he was voted into parliament. And in the event that he can no longer square this with his conscience, it would, in my opinion, be his moral duty to resign not only from his party but from parliament, even though the country’s constitution may place no such obligation upon him.
In fact, the system under which he was elected robs him of personal responsibility; it makes of him a voting machine rather than a thinking and feeling person. In my view, this is by itself a sufficient argument against proportional representation. For what we need in politics are individuals who can judge on their own and who are prepared to carry personal responsibility.
Such individuals are difficult to find under any party system, even without proportional representation—and it must be admitted that we have not yet found a way of doing without parties. But if we have to have parties, we had better not, by our constitution, add deliberately to the enslavement of our representatives to the party machine and to the party ideology by introducing proportional representation.
The immediate consequence of proportional representation is that it will tend to increase the number of parties. This, at first glance, may seem desirable: more parties means more choice, more opportunities, less rigidity, more criticism. It also means a greater distribution of influence and of power.
However, this first impression is totally mistaken. The existence of many parties means, essentially, that a coalition government becomes inevitable. It means difficulties in the formation of any new government, and in keeping a government together for any length of time.
-
4 minutes ago, Zeleban said:
Drones can be used for more than just dropping grenades
Delayed onset diabetes grenade, CHO-45. Victims get irritable if they eat dinner late.
-
38 minutes ago, _Morpheus_ said:
russians take a position but where smashed with M2 Browning and arty near Soledar.
Drone operator confirming hits for M2 Browning machine gunner in real time.That is not a Browning, but a DShK 38/46 I believe, though the sight seems a bit far from the end of the barrel, so perhaps I am wrong or it has some sort of attachment. The same position was shown in a longer video elsewhere, focusing on artillery fire.
-
1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:
Odd, me too. I've seen a couple of tanks laying smoke screens (oil on engine), but not smoke grenades.
Given the level of training a Russian tanker has these days, I bet the guy thought he was pushing the cigarette lighter button and got smoke grenades instead
Yes we discussed it when the footage of that failed river crossing emerged, there was plenty of smoke about but it seemed to be from engine injection and grenades or fires. Shtora-1 (assuming that's what this was, shame the video wasn't closer in, we might have seen the turret slew before launch) might not have been useful in that case anyway, since the cloud persistence is claimed to be 20 seconds. Still haven't seen anything conclusive on why it's been such a rare sight.
Cigarette lighter is coming on Armata.
-
First time I've seen a tank deploy smoke grenades in the war I think:
-
43. Split squad option: lone volunteer. We see videos from Ukraine of single soldiers breaking cover to launch AT etc.
-
8 hours ago, fireship4 said:
Without wishing to begin a discussion outside the topic
Failed successfully.
I grow tired, however... the meat of your first link:
QuoteSo why do humans not plan better, when the lethal effects of hurricanes are so well known, when the political and economic consequences of such storms are unarguably so dire?
One reason might lie in the way the perception centers of our brains are structured. The fact is, we seem to spend at least as much time and effort looking for patterns we recognize as we do scanning for the unexpected and new. It seems the visual cortex of monkeys, for example, uses bandwidths of around 60 Hz to collect information; at the same time, it orders the brain to look for previously recognized shapes on frequencies of 10 to 20 Hz, according to research by Charles Gilbert of Rockefeller University. The same type of informational trade-off applies to the human auditory system, and almost certainly to the other senses as well.
Another reason for our reluctance to plan long-term has to do with “hyperbolic discounting,” a truism of behavioral economics associated in particular with psychologist George Ainslie. What researchers found was that humans consistently will tend to opt for immediate rewards instead of rewards down the pike, even if the later rewards are greater. For example, when offered $50 now instead of $100 in a month, most people will choose the fifty bucks. If you translate this syndrome into hurricane planning, we prefer buying flashlight batteries the next time we see a TV warning about a hurricane threatening our area with power cuts, versus investing money in levees and flood-control infrastructure that might well prevent the destruction of our house, and even our own death, five or ten years hence.
contains in its second paragraph a claim regarding information collection bandwidth in monkeys, which is not present in the link it provides, and means nothing on the face of it, since my 802.11 is only 40Hz or so and I can fit the entirety of the internet down it. Indeed the reference itself says:
QuoteThe emerging evidence suggests that any cortical area is an adaptive processor. Rather than performing a fixed and stereotyped operation on input coming from the retina, it makes different calculations according to the immediate sensory and behavioral context. This moment-by-moment functional switching is likely mediated by an interaction between feedback connections from higher- to lower-order cortical areas and intrinsic cortical circuits. The role of top-down influences is then to set the cortex in a specific working mode according to behavioral requirements that are updated dynamically. In effect, these ideas reverse the central dogma of sensory processing, with a flow of information from higher- to lower-order cortical areas playing a role equal in importance to the feedforward pathways. The construction of a subjective percept involves making the best sense of sensory inputs based on a set of hypotheses or constraints derived by prior knowledge and contextual influences.
Which is a little more interesting and nuanced. In any case, the claim, together with the second paragraph (are we biologically incapable of denying $50 now instead of $100 in a month? How is it determined that $100 in a month is better for the subjects, since biology seems to deny such a possibility, indeed how can the researchers even write the paragraph without the pen falling from their hand in a rush to the cash machine), mean precisely nothing when it comes to the conjecture 'humans are biologically tailored towards short term thinking' - even if they are right they are wrong.
Human biology is good for running for a long time, throwing things at stuff, manipulating small objects, and being programmable with culture.
2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:I also suggest going to any public budget hearing in your local municipality if you want to see classic short term thinking at work. Oh, and if you paid any attention to the housing market crash, you'd know that long term thinking wasn't in the minds of either borrowers or lenders. Maybe you heard of Bernie Madoff? Not many long term thinkers in his portfolio.
~Edited: Co-ordination problems are not biological problems, they are born in part from our models of the world and the technology at hand, including those of communication and economic systems. Edited~
2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:Long term planning is just not our species' forte.
It is a forte that we possess alone in the known universe.
To get to my general point on the subject - whether or not we are anecdotally prone to a behaviour in one situation or another is beside the point. Human beings create explanatory knowledge which they can then use to change their behaviour. We extend our mental machinery with things like pencils and keyboards, hard drives and paper. We can conjecture things, and hold them to logic, by which they proceed, not by biological rules, but by their own attributes, to imagined consequences. Whatever biological cages and predispositions we have, it seems to me we are ultimately free to escape them, to the extent that we are able to tie our behaviour to ideas about reality, and those aren't made out of neurons.
I shall not appraise your other links, "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence": I apply a similar axiom when Google searches are used in place of arguments, placing the burden of disproof on the receiver of wisdom.
-Totalitarian and Authoritarian Government-
2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:Ah, now this is on topic
There are examples of totalitarian regimes seeming to do well because they can ignore/suppress short term interests and focus long term. But they also plan poorly for the future, which is why they fail so quickly relative to other forms of government.
Take Russia for example. Putin provided Russians with enough bobbles and bling to convince them that their lives were getting better to allow the regime to rob their people blind. For decades Russia was able to pull this off in part because it thought long term about regime survival. However, it did not plan well for the day when all that theft would ruin the economy and/or Putin's eventual death. As both of these things became more apparent and closer at hand, what did the Putin regime do? This war. I'd suggest this is a good example of bad long term planning, not good.
Most Western democracies, even with their poor long term planning, are doing better and have lasted longer than Russia's regime. Which calls into question how good Russia's long term planning is
Government that brooks no alternative and no opposition is not necessarily bad at planning for the future, I disagree with you on that. They can be more consistent, and with the knowledge that they are secure, plan far into the future.
In the case of Russia, 'ruining the economy' is somewhat subjective if you believe all your mates deserve a bunch of money and everyone else can eat a rock, or that might makes right, or that you are the real inheritors of Greek tradition because Catherine the Great captured Crimea...
The strength of the modern democracies is in good part to do with error-correction, and placing the levers for that in the hands of those they affect. They are open to ideas which can change them fundamentally, ideas like human rights, property rights, etc. etc. Their specific incarnations can be better or worse of course, the best of them can be updated without too much trouble...
Unlike CM
-
4 minutes ago, chrisl said:
I don't think Xi would tolerate a big war - it's bad for Chinese business. Sure, they can sell stuff to Russia for Russia to fight the war, but Russia is *way* down on the China trading partners list and doesn't really have the kind of money to make up for the loss of western trade that would result.
Hasn't that boat already sailed? I get the impression the West is decoupling from China as a manufacturing centre, and that the current order of globalisation is changing. Perhaps war can be averted, but I wonder if the West will continue with Farostpolitik in either case - some have come to see it as selling rope to their hangman.
-
16 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
"What realistic options do people think Russia could pursue to achieve a better outcome than what it is doing now? Keep in mind that regime preservation is the ultimate goal..."
I will give you my grimdark take: the regime may be at risk by loosing a small war, which cannot justify full mobilisation of the economy and great sacrifice of the people (enough to get them to turn on their masters as the least worst option).
So perhaps they will turn it into a big war, which justifies full mobilisation and full totalitarianism, and which they can safely loose, or hold to a stalemate, or until China divides their opponent's attention further.
10 minutes ago, dan/california said:The best path to REGIME survival is Putin's demise. Blame it all on him, get out of Ukraine with bad grace, and claim it is politically impossible to concede anything on reparations/warcrimes. Hope you can sell enough oil, metals, and fertilizers to make it through. They have been very slow to figure that out.
To some extent, but without the legitimacy of 'elections', or a perceived betrayal by the leader (something easily imaginable as his obituary, but not easily wielded as a pretext for deposal at this point) or their unlucky assassin, to be righted by a suitable hero, for which office there would be many candidates, to whom a breakup might be a viable alternative, the country is liable to fall apart.
How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
Apart from the very difficult question of how to directly secure a state's nuclear arsenal in such a scenario, perhaps the first measure of a mature state on the brink of such might be to destroy their 'nuclear codes'. Presumably the weapons could be re-enabled, but that would take time, and direct access.