hcrof
-
Posts
1,100 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by hcrof
-
-
Those are some big numbers
almost 1000 artillery pieces a month is probably more losses then the whole Soviet Union took in WW2!
-
21 minutes ago, Huba said:
TBH I think this is almost exactly what will happen there, when it will be clear Russia lost the war.
I'm not sure, of course it is possible but I get the impression that many Moldovan people would rather be rid of the place since it is not ethnically or linguistically Moldovan/Romanian but rather a 5th column of Russians that would damage their democracy and prospects of EU membership.
-
1 hour ago, Grigb said:
We still have a Transdniestria problem. Both Moldova and Romania are watching carefully. If front is frozen in current configuration we will lose Transdniestria.
Thanks Grigb, how do the RU nationalists think that they will "lose" Transdniestria?
-
8 minutes ago, danfrodo said:
If someone sent longer range rockets, like tochka (sp?), I suspect that country(s) might want quiet. But UKR is suddenly hitting deeper targets much more often it seems.
Is is possible to make tochka-u missiles artisanally? They are pretty crude tech and it might be possible to use a 3d printer and a couple of raspberry pi computers to make an Ersatz Version?
-
Thanks Grigb, really interesting insights! Do you think there is a genuine shift in the narrative on the Russian side, or is it still just the usual grumbling we have heard from the start?
-
24 minutes ago, Huba said:
Poland is introducing self-propelled, breech loaded, turreted mortars caled Rak (cancer or crayfish) in it's Patria AMV based brigades, 8 per battalion. With modern ammunition advertised range should be around 10km. I wonder how war in Ukraine will verify that idea. On one hand, firing range is rather short - on the other firepower is awesome, and vehicle should be able to scoot from the position in 15 seconds.
Or if you want something really light, CARDOM mortar on HMMWV should have similar firepower.
I think that you can do a lot with a Rak type system - with tight drone integration it can scoot around causing chaos and could even fire smart ammunition to function as a tank hunter. In fact, a small/armoured/unmanned version of this is what I think of when I think of a new "tanklike" UGV: depress the barrel for direct fire against APCs, indirect smart fire against tanks and mortar capability/MG against infantry.
-
3 minutes ago, c3k said:
@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.
This is largely correct, you would be able to drive heavier vehicles over the bridges official rating if you had to, but the bridge would need a proper inspection first, then as you say you would go one-by-one. Using a tank transporter to spread the load would also help.
It may also be possible to reinforce a bridge to increase its rating (or compensate for poor maintenance), but that adds even more time (maybe a month to get a design together) and complexity. The other thing is that engineers can either work fast or work efficiently - you need a lot of spare engineers sitting around if you want a fast response in this sort of thing.
-
I wonder to what extent politicians are concerned about images of NATO tanks burning on the battlefield? Artillery is not well known by the general public (and harder to hit anyway) but destroyed leopards and Abrams might raise questions.
-
3 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:
Also very effective in urban combat for ground targets. I believe not so much against fixed wing aircraft but gunships.
I know that Gepard style vehicles were abandoned in the west because they were not seen as very effective against fixed wing aircraft, but given russian tactics in this war I think that assumption may need to be revisited. The Russians seem to favour low level strafing which is exactly what an autocannon can effectively deal with.
-
14 minutes ago, FancyCat said:
Im not familiar with AA, so the fact they are autocannons does not mean they cannot fend off aircraft? So they can provide the mobile support for a offensive? Even high flying aircraft with stand off weaponry? (I know we are supposing Russia is hoarding it's most technological advanced equipment in case of NATO but maybe NATO provided equipment counts)
I can see why NATO may be very reluctant to cross lines with aircraft, Russian gas is extremely important to Europe and if Putin were to cut off gas completely, it would cause a economic crisis in all of Europe. Now yes, Putin gets money, but his bet is that European resolve will waver before Russian resolve and I don't think he's wrong here.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/16/world/europe/russia-gas-cuts-ukraine-germany.html
Russian planes are flying very low to avoid long range air defenses like S-300. A Gepard is short ranged but quick to react to a low flying target so would probably be very effective in this context.
-
58 minutes ago, YouWillOwnNothing said:
Hate and hybris often makes people blind to reality.
How about some realism?
That is a very selective reading of the facts to justify his obvious position that Ukraine should just accept anything Russia imposes on them and the west should say sorry to Russia for opposing their unprovoked invasion.
I think it is clear to all that Ukraine is taking ruinous casualties and economic damage, but Russia is hurting bad too or they wouldn't be using t-62s and 1960s era "precision missiles".
If Ukraine still wants to fight we should give them what they need. The russian state is a menace and crippling it is very much in the west's best interest.
-
With GMRLS, you could potentially just fire 1 rocket a day at a random piece of track and shut the line down permanently for minimal cost!
-
Just now, akd said:
Ukrainians using tanks for indirect fire:
I've always wondered if that is actually effective or just a quick way to wear out your main gun...
-
7 minutes 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.
That's a pretty nice concept actually - the key is to make them cheap enough to fit on every APC in my opinion and that looks quite simple
-
12 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:
...Why aren't UA (or Russian) squads killing more drones, at least the little quads as opposed to the big higher flying UAVs? Or maybe they are? Or maybe there's fewer of them than it looks like? TBH, I know little to nothing about the drone war but it seems like getting these things out of the skies should be pretty high on the list for both sides.
Anyone?
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
-
7 minutes ago, Calamine Waffles said:
Ran out of the Relikt soft-case ERA, I guess.
I was going to laugh, but actually it might not be terrible armour protection? I imagine if an atgm hits at a relatively frontal angle, going through a material with lots of voids in it (i.e a box of rocks) would break the jet up a bit before it hits the real armour? I think it would be much less effective at side hits though.
-
8 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:
Do really NLAW's cause so many lossess to RUS troops? Perhaps. But it may stem from Russian incompetence and lack of eqiuipment rather than ATGM's awesomeness. Also, there were several statements by Ukrainian top brass that ATGM's and drones are very helpfull, but it was artillery doing the real execution. I doubt Westerners would leave any enemy big guns in range intact before puting boots on the ground.
My understanding is that they were vital in the first few weeks - they were handed out like candy to the TD guys and they could effectively stop tanks with little training.
Nowadays with the Russians more cautious, I would say they are less effective but the threat remains so they know they can't just tank rush anymore. They don't need to score kills to be effective - their presence is enough to slow down enemy attacks so they can be killed by artillery.
-
17 minutes ago, akd said:
I guess it makes sense…
I really hope this is just a joke and they plan to mount that gun on an APC or something...
-
2 minutes ago, YouWillOwnNothing said:
First I couldn't believe it, now I find it fascinating, that people in this forum, despite having access to the internet, choose to live in the NATO filter bubble.
I'm not sure a one sentence comment is gonna change anyone's mind here. Happy to hear a russian perspective but it needs to be a properly constructed arguement.
-
Has anyone else noticed that while russian tank losses have decreased from about 10 a day to about 3 a day, their artillery losses have increased from 2-3 a day to about 9 a day? This has happened over the last 2 weeks or so from memory.
Im not sure what it means but it seems to be a good thing - fewer tank targets and more effective UA CB fire? Or maybe the pressure is off a bit and UA artillery has more time to hunt russian guns?
-
35 minutes ago, panzermartin said:
There were older times when human life didn't have that much value. People were used to death. Many newborns didn't make it, common illness could kill, and in general life was much more miserable for the common folk. Societies were living in the darkness of religion and analphabetism. One could easily sacrifice himself for the glory of the king, the emperor, the Imam or just for a day's ration.
On this point, life may have been cheaper in the old days but before the French Revolution noone would sacrifice themselves for the glory of some abstract ideal like a king - soldiers were strictly mercenary.
The idea of sacrificing yourself for any entity larger than your own village or town is a very modern thing and in this era of mass media and competing ideologies (yep we are back there again) I would say it's not dead yet.
Edit: I forgot about the Muslim conquests but it's almost the exception that proves the rule.
-
6 minutes ago, Harmon Rabb said:
"For now, all we know is that the first stage of the war included an ill-fated march on Kyiv and a failed attempt to encircle Ukraine’s second-largest city, Kharkiv. Was it a part of the plan for a broad occupation or a way of distracting Ukrainian forces while Russia was establishing the land corridor to Crimea?"
I see some journalists are still giving credibility to the idea that Russia's attempt to take Kyiv was some sort of distraction on a large scale.
To be honest, the narrative here is more important than the truth and Russia has been determined to push that narrative.
There is another option, that Russia tried for a coup de main, with the option of holding Kiev on the one hand or just installing a new government and leaving if civil resistance looked like it was too strong. Even if that new government subsequently fell, the punitive effect would remain and Ukraine would become more compliant in the future.
Looking forward to the final verdict as history is written...
-
3 minutes ago, Huba said:
Still AFAIK the Chinese support for the war in Ukraine is nothing compared to what it could be if PRC really wanted to see Russians win - it is in no way a Chinese proxy war with the West at this point.
It is very interesting to see the disconnect between what the Chinese say and what they do at this point. I am not sure that tension is sustainable in the long term but I have no idea which direction they will eventually turn.
-
10 minutes ago, Huba said:
Phew, I managed to read it but it was painful - official Party line I presume? Loaded with Communist talking points and phraseology. I do not doubt that this is what is being officially presented - the article I linked surprised me by not being written in this spirit. I don't pretend to know what Xi and his court really think, just wanted to point out that different than official opinions are being voiced too.
It really is hard to read, and so obviously nonsense from a western perspective, but it is the official party line and as far as I know that is the story being fed to 1.4 billion Chinese people.
I was very interested in the article you posted, but I don't want to fall into the trap of wishful thinking. Even if that guy won the debate and Xi changed from a hard-line russiophile to a softy liberal, how do you sell that to the Chinese public after months of anti US histeria?
How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted · Edited by hcrof
Link
It looks like they will only get 3 weeks training in the UK - I am not sure how much they can learn in that time? I mean it is great that the UK is offering training, but is it not better to have a more stability rather than getting flown out of basic training for 3 weeks in a foreign country?
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-to-offer-major-training-programme-for-ukrainian-forces-as-prime-minister-hails-their-victorious-determination