Jump to content

Audgisil

Members
  • Posts

    63
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Audgisil

  • Birthday 03/06/1973

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location:
    Germany

Converted

  • Location
    Deutschland
  • Interests
    Scuba diving, reading, gaming
  • Occupation
    Communications

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Audgisil's Achievements

Member

Member (2/3)

78

Reputation

  1. To me, the evolution of drone warfare in this conflict seems to mirror the introduction of aircraft during the First World War. At the beginning, aircraft were mostly thought of as a tool for observation and artillery direction, similar to drones. Then one guy brings a pistol one day and shoots at the other guy. The guy who got shot at was understandably irritated and figured out a way to strap a machine gun to his aircraft. The next thing you know, there are massed arial dogfights with dedicated fighter aircraft, mult-engine heavy bombers (by WWI standards), specialized recon aircraft, etc. When you compare 1914 to 1918, it's hardly recognizable as the same conflict. Then if you compare WWI aviation to the advancements in aerial warfare just within the 20th century, it looks more like what one might expect from an alien invasion. I have the, uninformed, feeling that drone warfare today (I include unmanned ground vehicles in this as well), will be nearly unrecognizable in as few as twenty or thirty years.
  2. You don't even have to go back that far in time to find when the Russians last looked West. A lot a Russians very conveniently like to forget that they started World War 2 on the same side with Germany. In September of 1939, they helped invade Poland. Two months later (and still allied with Germany), they started the Winter War with Finnland.
  3. I've been watching a number of videos recently that have shown combat in the trenches from Ukrainian and Russian perspectives. I'm beginning to wonder if trenches are not more of a hindrance than a help to defenders. It seems that defenders in the trenches are trading maneuverability and situational awareness for increased cover. But to what advantage? Even though they have increased cover, they actually lose a fair bit of concealment as well. Sure, you cannot directly see a defender unless he pops his head up above the trench, but you where he's at and that he's not going far. Granted, the defenders have some degree of lateral movement within the trench, but that's it. The defender's maneuverability seems pretty restricted. With the plethora of automatic weapons, large capacity magazines, grenades, and now drones. It just appears that what was a good idea during World War I may now be a deathtrap for defenders. Due to the loss of situational awareness for defenders, it just seems like the attackers are consistently able to close the distance to trenches and maneuver around above them fairly easily. The defenders in the trenches, on the other hand, seem limited to mostly unaimed fire whereby they are just raising their rifles above the trench, giving a short prayer, and then spraying in the general direction of the enemy. The assaulting troops are able to lay down well aimed suppression fire on suspected positions, close, and eliminate the threat? How often have we seen guys getting killed at point blank ranges as they have been forced to seek deeper and deeper cover in holes at the bottom of trenches? Would a better option not be to have pickets forward of the trench lines? These pickets would actually form the main defense by giving enough warning for defending troops to actually leave the trenches and push forward toward the picket lines. Besides, why even dig trenches at all? Aren't they just a giant blinking neon sign to observation drones that says, "hey guys, our main line of defense is right here." Also the trenches just seem to be giant artillery magnets, and do they really help much against airburst artillery anyway? In short, do defensive trenches give defending troops a false sense of security while actually robbing them of maneuverability and situational awareness while simultaneously compressing them into a tighter space that essentially becomes a kill box? These are just some musings that I have. Who knows, maybe the trenches are also necessary because of the amount of thermal imaging on the battlefield these days. Maybe a better tactic would be dug in positions with defenders interspersed "out in the open" between them. Maybe a trench is just the best of many bad options when defending open areas where there are no tree lines or any other form of cover. I'm curious to hear your thoughts. If trenches are a bad Idea, I advise the Russians to continue digging them.
  4. It's my understanding that surrendering is one of the most dangerous things to attempt during a firefight, likely even more so at those ranges. Those Ukrainian soldiers had less than a fraction of a second to determine if the enemy moving toward or past them are armed, carrying a grenade, attempting to engage in hand-to-hand, etc. The fact that the Ukrainian soldiers called out at one point in the video for the Russians to surrender speaks very well of them. However, this is a clear case of "when in doubt, open fire."
  5. Every now and again someone here posts a very informative summary of events to date. This one might not be that informative, but I found it highly amusing, nevertheless.
  6. I just saw in the news that Zelenskyy has invited Xi to visit Ukraine. I think this is a very clever move. It'll be hard for Xi to turn down the invitation while still trying to maintain China's self-appointed image as "arbiter of peace". However, I find it unlikely that Xi accepts. If China did though, Russia will scream like a stuck pig when Ukraine takes advantage of the opportunity to talk one-on-one with China. I can only image what clever things Ukraine might offer or what opportunities they might use to generate positive press.
  7. You'll find soldiers grumbling about the current situation (whatever the situation) in every military on the planet, but this most recent intercept out of Ukraine is maybe an indication in the tea leaves at the bottom of the cup... I hope so.
  8. One thing about this war that I find very frustrating is that we, the collective West, seem to constantly allow Russia to define much of the narrative. It's usually not too difficult to expose their lies, but we appear to always allow them to first make accusations, to which we then respond. Maybe it's just the impression that I have, but I would really like to see the West go much more over to the PR offensive. Let's put Hollywood and 5th Avenue to work on this. The Russians are the biggest bunch of pearl clutching, hippocritical Karen's on the planet. I find it disgusting how they were all a bunch of "good little Athiests" during the Soviet era. Now, their same leaders, including Putin, have suddenly found God. Naturally, he's on their side. It's just so transparent. They also scream about how NATO is defacto an active participant in this war, which is complete BS. Our armies are not shooting at anyone. Yet, nobody points out that the Soviets not only sent everything but the kitchen sink to Korea in the 1950s, they also sent Russian pilots, who were actively engaged in combat with American forces. We need to go after them mercilessly on the public relations front. I think it would also help to educate so many in the general public, all over the world, who suffer from selective memory loss and continue to want to give these scum bags the benefit of doubt and give deference to the point of view of those "poor Russians who are just acting out because they feel threatened." Boy, I just needed to rant for a minute today.
  9. I guess things are getting pretty hot in Ukraine. In all seriousness though, these kinds of things really help with moral and continue to show the difference between how Russia and Ukraine treat their troops.
  10. In its recent past, Germany seems to have used the position of "Minister of Defense" as nothing more than a parking spot for politicians on their way up the political ladder. Military experience, or even basic knowledge, let alone competency, were not factors in deciding on whom to appoint. The last three (all women) were appointed more to fulfill a quota. "Look how modern, liberal, and diverse we are." That's not to say, that a woman cannot have the knowledge and experience to hold such a position, but none of those women did. I think Germany was entirely caught off guard with respect to the necessity to maintain a capable military. It's been a combination of wishful thinking and spending on other "priorities" because the U.S. (along with the rest of Nato) had Germany's back, militarily speaking.
  11. Just a small comment from the peanut gallery. I always hated it when people get some silly rule stuck in the their head and lose sight any ability to compromise or allow for nuance. Sure lets throw out all the subtlety available in the language to just follow some made-up rule. True story: Winston Churchill once had an editor go through a speech and change all of the sentences that ended with prepositions. Churchill responded by writing in the margins, "This is the kind of nonsense, with which I will not put up." And to bring this back to the discussion of analysis of the current conflict and post-war ramifications, we also should be careful about trying to shoehorn our predictions or preconcieved notions into any tidy little rules that we've invented just for ourselves. We humans love to sometimes try and invent rules and categories where none really exist. Now I'll let the adults get back to discussing things.
  12. What Ukraine might really need soon is the logistics that allows them to serve warm meals close to the front. It's going to get cold soon. Not only does this help their own troops, but think of the potential for large scale surrenders come late November when a bunch of cold, tired, and very hungry Russians are told that they can come on over, surrender, and get a decent meal.
  13. The moron going off on his rant at the beginning also talks about "the need for censorship" and then 5 seconds later says how they need to "talk openly about the problems that their military and industry face." Which is it? How do you argue with people who don't even bother to stick to any kind of internal logic, no matter how flawed it might be?
  14. It would also be a good idea for western countries to set up numerous believalbe "recruiting" opportunities to allow these willing participants to conveniently report themselves to intelligence services. A lot of them could even be left in the field to continue their "useful" efforts. May as well use these witless idiots against themselves.
×
×
  • Create New...