kevinkin
-
Posts
3,208 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by kevinkin
-
-
I think Zelensky should avoid US politics for the time being. And dodge when asked to weigh in. Just work with the current admin to keep the meager support flowing. Ukraine will not get more support at this point in the campaign season that will matter. Ok, maybe by the Fall. But I don't think American's are talking about the war at the kitchen table. However if they do, public support would be less predictable than just staying the course and waiting for the things to unfold. Washington supports Ukraine by and large up to the point where WMD come into play. Is the destruction of those dams a WMD? Pretty damn close. Don't be surprised if the the issue of grain comes up as a factor.
-
2 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
I'm wondering if Ukraine will continue this sort of pattern. Push in a few spots for a few days, pause, then for a few days more push harder in some places and keep the others quiet. Then repeat this process over several weeks, introducing new units into the fight as little as possible. Of course, if something dramatic develops I would fully expect this strategy to shift.
I agree totally with this type of operational method. It works with the UA strengths and against RA weaknesses. I don't think Ukraine really cares where the RA collapses; they want to make it happen somewhere. "Get inside" the enemy decision cycle and gain the advantage. Then let water flow downhill naturally. However, these probes need secure bases to operate from and that may in part explain their directions.
-
58 minutes ago, chrisl said:
it's the same people selling AO systems, but one is to look at the sky and the other into biological spaces like your eyeball.
Makes sense. I have been away from the field for a long time. While the principles of observation are very similar, few are professionals at both microscopy and astronomy - at least in the interpretation of the observations. Any can kid stare into a microscope and look at pond water. If interested, send me PM. This is now way off topic.
-
7 minutes ago, chrisl said:
I design and build both for a living
.
That's very cool. I never heard of one outfit that does both commercially. Perhaps in a defense arena? I was involved in the early stages of IR microscopy when it moved from university to industry.
-
3 minutes ago, chrisl said:
You can look through both.
And they actually both do the same thing - they take something that fills a small angle of your unaided view and make it fill a large angle.
Yeah, but they are observing different phenomenon. For example, cell division vs. the red shift. BYW, a own a research grade microscope and telescope. I get more use out of the microscope due to local light pollution. However,
https://www.dcnr.pa.gov/StateParks/FindAPark/CherrySpringsStatePark/Pages/Stargazing.aspx
Well worth the investment but it's a hike to get to.
-
22 minutes ago, dan/california said:
The stated goal here is more analytic
I understand that. My mind tends to think of the big picture or try find perspective from past combat. I prefer to look through a telescope, not a microscope. And definingly not through rose colored glasses.
-
8 minutes ago, dan/california said:
NATO should be aspiring to THEIR standards.
You mean having no air force? Maybe the standards we see in within UA have a lot to do with the lack of standards their enemy has. And that is not to disrespect the small units fighting on the ground for the UA. We are all impressed beyond belief. However, the amount of firepower NATO could bring to bear in a professional manner is orders of magnitude greater than what the UA can provide even with NATO assistance. You can tell, I am Ped off and frustrated. Not at you dan. Playing armchair general is fun in peace time when everything is hypothetical. Every time a post to this forum is made a UA troop is dying within the same timeframe. Maybe not exactly, but you get my point.
-
56 minutes ago, chris talpas said:
Only covers up to Monday but still a good overview of all the fronts
Thanks for posting that. Keep them coming it you can.
-
47 minutes ago, Fenris said:
Precision. Examples of counter battery work.
Wow, why bother hiding in tree lines? Might as well spread out, fire and move. Nothing mechanized can survive in broad daylight on a pool table under aerial observation without a tremendous amount of training and communication. I am encouraged by that video more than others. I hope it's reliable.
-
4 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
probably
It was, is and will continue to be (unfortunately) the largest military operation in Europe since WW2.
Now let's figure out how to maneuver the enemy out of their trenches and Ukraine as a whole given the limits on military assistance the the UA has to deal with.
-
2 hours ago, Vet 0369 said:
one of the ratings for a Marine’s promotion is their rifle qualification score. Basically every Marine is a “dedicated Marksman.”
I didn't know that. Thanks.
-
2 hours ago, riptides said:
Well one party considers the action to be a Special Military Operation.
Therefor I see no hold up with membership for Ukraine.
Jeez, you know what I mean.
-
More on the NATO front:
Who every thought Sweden and Hungry would be involved in any controversy?
-
Delicate situation:
The NATO chief said the alliance is working on a multi-year package that is likely to be agreed upon at the summit. The support package will help Ukraine meet the organization's standards for membership, he said.
From what I remember, NATO membership requires the new entry not to be in an active war.
-
23 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
convincing people Russia was invincible.
Nuclear blackmail is all Putin (and China) has and it's a better deterrent than any lame minefield he placed on the Ukrainian soil. So in a way Russia is invincible unless the west calls his bluff and ends the war via massive conventional firepower the likes of which we have never seen. Why didn't the US press an ultimatum on Putin months ago? Here we are watching Ukrainians die because we are afraid of going all in conventionally.
-
1 hour ago, Vet 0369 said:
The reason for replacing was because combat was occurring at ranges of 100 to 200m (in addition to being lighter. Every year I was in the Marines, I qualified at 500 yards (460m) with the M14, and That was with open sights (aperture “peep” sights) not optics. If I can see it, I can hit it.
I very much honor your service. So I think you are in a great position to address my paragraph below:
Qualifying is under ideal conditions. Squads have marksmen that are held outside of close combat. NATO squads are trained at fire and movement and the idea of entrenched warfare where sniper ranges might matter is frowned upon. These squads are armed for offensive operations. Once they are static their advantage over a poorly equipped and trained enemy is minimized aka fire bases in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. So in a war of movement, squads armed with shotguns would be better off than squads armed long range rifles. The shock effect matters. Tactics place those shotguns in position against the enemy where after a few booms, the enemy gives up.
-
Quick interesting read from a guy who trained elements of the UA.
-
Deep drive into the subject posted last night.
-
Troop movements?
The undermining of the dam, Maliar said, "was apparently carried out with the aim of preventing an offensive by the Defense Forces of Ukraine in the Kherson direction and releasing the necessary reserves for their transfer to the Zaporizhzhia and Bakhmut directions."
"According to available information, it became known that the enemy is moving its most combat-capable units from the Kherson direction, primarily units of the marines, airborne troops and the 49th army," Maliar wrote. Forbes has described the 49th Combined Arms Army as "the Russian main force" in occupied Kherson region.
-
34 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
He points out that until we see evidence of HUNDREDS of armored vehicles committed to a single area, then the real counter offensive hasn't started. Which is why it's so laughable that the Russians got all excited about a dozen or so vehicles destroyed.
Another analogy is the well known wolfpack sub tactics. Stay dispersed until intel informs you to concentrate. Get the job done, disperse, and wash and repeat. Without close air support, (saying power) this will be the UA mode of operations. They have no other choice. Corrosive is the term in vogue now. But it's really Hutier tactics in 2023.
-
22 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
Not really a game changer.
I'll happily revise my thinking of Russian offensive capabilities when I have solid proof that they are doing something militarily significant.
Well said. Once again, can a well motivated and trained technically driven armed force defeat a force of greater numbers in entrenched positions. No, not without massive losses. The UA must maneuver the RA out of those positions where is no cover and nor concealment. Given the correlation of forces, it's about producing a mindset in the RA there is no hope since their logistic and medical support is in shambles. Imagine watching a friend bleed out over 48 hours because your nation did that to them.
-
16 minutes ago, danfrodo said:
But I agree w posters above that the south is still the main goal.
Yes, that could be. And threatening the land link to Crimea is a beacon to consider. But the geometry of the opposing forces lines points south as well. Defending that land link might be a RA weakness because its of political value, not so much military. Threaten to pop the balloon in the south; but explode it in the north. I don't think the RA has the means to defend against alternation. Something will have to give. Lucy on the chocolate line:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=el2jPLlnnl8
-
4 hours ago, danfrodo said:
OK, folks, time to put your money on the table. I don't gamble for money but we can pretend.
Not to beat a dead horse, I think we are seeing several shaping operation and the UA will expand into any weakness created or presents itself no matter where on the front it takes place. Other than Crimea or perhaps the nuke power plant, there really is no territorial beacon that is so important that it would direct UA operations. Ukraine wants to show significant progress toward the goal of liberation. Where that occurs is not that important. Most the occupied infrastructure has been or will be destroyed by the Red force. Imagine if it came out that Ukraine was maneuvering to capture coal reserves? Half of DC would drop their martinis and support for such a venture.
-
2 hours ago, acrashb said:
"stopping power" is largely a myth.
I remember reading the US rifles (I think early M1 Garands) had ammo that tumbled at a certain range and were the first type of hallow point type bullet. Stopping power is real. Ask a police officer. Given the confusion inherent in combat, premise shots often can't be achieved. Weapons systems and tactics have to work in harmony. Sometimes a sniper rifle is best; somethings a shotgun.
.
How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted · Edited by kevinkin
Yep, and a state senator has zero influence on foreign policy. Most have primary jobs and some run to effect local policy especially when it can make them money. Real-estate and zoning are biggies and just being on the "inside" gives them advantages over other citizens. I am on a first name bias with my state senator. The perks are real. But he is dumb as a stump. Buys everyone a round after golf and smiles a lot. BTW, technically he would on my side of aisle. But he is still schmuck. Don't get worked up over that Black dude. They are a come out of wood works in a imperfect free society.