Seedorf81
-
Posts
938 -
Joined
Posts posted by Seedorf81
-
-
Russian investigators conclude after "genetic testing" that both Prigozjin and Utkin were on the crashed plane.
-
Two situations where people had good reasons for insurgencies (if there are any good reasons), but nothing happened, were Germany and Japan right after the end of WW2.
Both countries had, until defeated, completely different (political and social, mainly) beliefs compared to the conquering and occupying nations (Ehm, just the Western Allies, because Russia.., well, Russia just being Russian.)
So that could be a reason for an insurgency, because there was a (kind of) repression from the Allied occupants. (Warning: this is not my personal opinion, I describe what lots of Germans and Japanese might have felt in 1945.) Some political views were suddenly FORBIDDEN, and some people were hunted down and punished for things that were totally acceptable in their countries until the end of the war.
Medical experiments, massive exploitation of slave-labourers, killing Jews and Russian POW's and Chinese civilians and Allied POW's, killng innocent hostages, looting occupied countries, and so on and so forth. Suddenly the people who were engaged in those things, weren't allowed to do that no more. So those people, and were talking about not just hundreds, but at least hundreds of thousands, were "forced" to live differently, which also can be a reason for wanting to participate in, or instigate, an insurgency/rebellion.
Besides that a huge percentage of all people in Germany and Japan had experienced personal loss. Either by being wounded, familymembers killed or wounded or missing, friends and neighbours and colleagues killed, or having their houses and shops and factories being destroyed or through evacuations and/or ending up homeless. And those who didn't experience a personal loss, saw their countries being humiliated and being bombed to smithereens.
Which, considering the fact that we humans always feel our own suffering much more than that of others and the tendency to ignore what we (Germany and Japan in this case) did to others, can create resentment and a lust for revenge.
So why was there no big insurgency then? Why practically no attacks on the occupiers?
Well, it seems to me that there are two ways to prevent an insurgency.
1. Utter and total repression.
Immediate and murderous hunting down of every possible bit of revolt or resistance. Like Stalin did. Kill everyone you suspect. As a result most people won't even think about protesting or speaking up, just out of fear and self-preservation.
2. Being much better than what was.
The Western Allies brought, even for fanatical nationalists, better circumstances on nearly all parts of life for the Germans and Japanese. Freedom of thought and speech and what to read, freedom of travel and movement, freedom to choose your occupation, freedom of religion, entrepeneurial freedom, and much more.
But there was something else; which seems a little weird: people were not being persecuted for wrong-doings except the worst. In stead of shooting all Germans (like I would have done if I was Eisenhower when he discovered what the Germans really did during WW2), stunning amounts of "wrong-doers" got away with sometimes stunning crimes. And even some of those who were convicted, had their sentences absurdly reduced, a few years later.
But unbelievably so, that - for most people despicable - "forgiveness behaviour" created better circumstances in the long run. It helped to create a better, much less belligerent, Germany and Japan. (Eh, until today al least
.)
Somehow accepting that people do bad/stupid things, and try to cope with that, works better than revenge and retalliation. Not always and not perfectly, but it works.
So as I see it: when (NOT IF) Ukraine gets Crimea (and the rest) back, there's just two ways to prevent an insurgency.
Be extremely ruthless, or be forgiving.
-
If the Ukrainian Army gets a breakthrough here, does it still have enough forces (close by) to exploit?
-
2 minutes ago, dan/california said:
Yes, that is the one. One of the more significant commando operations of the whole war.
Good old Johnny "Arnhem bridge" Frost!
-
The forementioned video will probably appear everywhere, but here is my crappy translation of Putin's words
"About that planecrash..
My sympathy for the families of the victims.
If (!) Wagner-associates were on plane, I will emphasize that they made a substantial contribution in struggle against neo-nazi's of Ukraine. We know and never will forget that."
-
Putin reaction on Prig-crash.
(Dutch, but scroll a bit down for video in Russian, starts after one annoying advert.)
-
Dutch army delivers 950 extra "Man Portable Line Charges" (MPLC) to Ukraine.
50 were already sent, these new ones get "speedy delivery".
-
"Norway also decides to donate F-16's to Ukraine"
No numbers available yet.
-
1 minute ago, LongLeftFlank said:
Can you all take this North Africa DAK red herring to another thread, s.v.p.?
Yup, crossposted but, if I had read this before I posted, I would not have posted.
Sorry.
-
18 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:
I gave Britannica as reference but you guys still know better. Italy was beaten because the army really didn't fight their natural allies against their natural enemies the Austrians. Mussolini was overrated by Hitler imagine if they had a beter motivation. The Italians should have been able to be able to win in the Mediterranean but the hearts and mind of the armed forces were not into it. Suez Canal was the objective without it Britain was lost. Afrika Korps compared what they had in the Soviet Union was a sideshow. But the Suez Canal was the price.
Before Steve wakes up and tells us (rightly so) to shut it, because we are waaaaay of topic, just some detailed information from better informed sources than Brittanica.
https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/drive-nowhere-myth-afrika-korps-1941-43
Lots of facts. No oil, no Suez-canal as initial goal, Rommel's insubordination, too small a expeditionary corps and supplies for strategic goals, and so on.
(My last post on this subject.)
-
2 minutes ago, TheVulture said:
Wot coastal defence doing?
Sounds like a successful special forces raid. It's been a bad news week for Russia on all fronts.
Well, if Ukraine had a submarine (which they do not, as far as I know), and that number of 10 attackers is correct, I can imagine they surprised the Russians.
But if they came in boats, it is almost as humiliating as the Moskva-sinking. More poststamps in the making!
-
8 minutes ago, Haiduk said:
WOW !
UKR GUR forces has landed on Tarkhankut cape in Crimea and reportedly destroyed long-range radars of 3rd radiotechnical regiment of Air-Space Forces near Mayak village. About this told press-secreter of GUR Andriy Yusov. Ukr forces used boats and aviation for support. In present time clashes are continuing
More than 100 miles undetected? WOW, indeed.
-
19 minutes ago, Joe982 said:
I forecast that Putin will blame Ukraine for the aircraft crash.
.
If I were Ukrainian intelligence I would make up a story about some secret action, or weapon, that killed Prig and his mates. Let that leak out, and then having it denied by some higher up guy. Just to make even every "loyal to Putin"-Russian think twice about taking a plane.
Doesn't matter if it is a cockamamy story, just annoy and confuse the Russians.
-
6 hours ago, chuckdyke said:
Same reason Rommel was in Afrika in WW2 it was oil nowadays more raw materials than we can poke a stick at. Regimes where everybody is corrupt from the Bishop to the Ice-cream seller. Lovely area for the Russians to do business.
Ehm, first and main reason why the Africa-corps was sent, was Hitler helping his Buddy Benito, who got himself into very embarrassing trouble against a much smaller British contingent.
Hitler was a horrifying beast, but he was sometimes strangely loyal. He always supported Mussolini, even if it cost him dearly. And if Hitler sacked people (Generals, mostly) he took care of them with money and houses and other generous gifts, even if they had performed abysmal (in his eyes).
And nobody even remotely expected that Rommel would be able to get to Egypt.
So oil was not the reason.
-
11 minutes ago, AlexUK said:
What if it was at night? The drones overfly the main trench lines at speed and high. 2 or 3,000 say, with lots of dummy ones mixed in.
Wouldn't a couple of ZSU-23's, even shooting at just the sound, massacre those guys? Imagine what a single Shilka could do! Only with total air-superiority such a thing would be feasible, i think, but if you had that, the whole drone-attack probably wouldn't be neccesary.
-
On the "yes/no enough support from the US/West"-topic.
I think there is a comparison to be made with WW2.
When in 1940 and 1941 Great-Britain was in it's direst need of help, it did not get overwhelming support from the USA. Mainly because Roosevelt, who really wanted to support Britain big time, did not have the political possiblities to do so.
Churchill asked and begged, bargained and bullied, but - like Zelensky these days - could not get what he needed/wanted.
It was only after Pearl Harbor, and the subsequent declaring of war with USA by Hitler, that the USA started to give overwhelming support to Great Britain.
So unless there is a very blatant trigger-scenario that forces the USA/NATO to go all-out, I think that things will stay as they are, support-wise.
And the terrible question is, does one want such a blatant trigger-scenario to happen?
-
2 hours ago, kimbosbread said:
I don’t think it’s that bad for two reasons:
- These things are fast, like 60+mph fast. Hitting a low, fast moving target even with an automatic weapon is nontrivial.
- This system “ideally” would come with SEI (ie suppress the infrantry) which in my mind is a swarm of drones that would attack any infantry or fortified positions at the same time. No reason a drone swarm is just HE and Thermobaric- could also just be smoke.
- You aren’t just carrying infantry, but the semi-autonomous second-gen UGVs we’ve discussed before, ie a AGM or a NLAW quad pack mounted on an ATV or a brace of stretchers.
The weakness of this system is less exposure, and that is requires lots of coordination in an EW environment. Paradrops in war zones seems to degenerate into messes anyway, so if you can offload coordination and navigation to the machines, and the suppression strategy, it might not be so bad.
I'm terribly sorry if I offend you, but I couldn't help thinking of the famous phrase Captain Mainwaring from tv-show Dad's Army (very, very long ago, black and white televison-period) used if corporal Jones had a rather impractical idea:" Hmm, I think you're getting into the realms of fantasy here".
I do not think this kind of attack is doable at all.
(BTW, would "our" Capt be anything like Mainwaring?
) -
4 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
Highly credible. How do I know? He plays CM
Seriously though, I’ve spoken with him on the phone and have checked out his CV. He is fully qualified to have an opinion worthy of consideration.
This article was written 10 years before this war started. I think Inread it at the time. As it so happens, I agreed with him then and even more now. I couldn’t be a supporter of the Stryker if I didn’t.
In this war we are seeing pretty much everything he talks about. IFVs in a minefield are no better than a modern APC (I.e. V-hull, high suspension, etc), yet significantly more expensive and therefore fewer in number. They are also just as likely to get hit by ATGM and artillery, yet not all that better at surviving. And then there is the reduced infantry capacity that he goes into detail about.
I think we are seeing the Ukrainians, and even Russians, using AFVs pretty well at times. Tank stays with infantry, APCs drop infantry and withdraw. Ideally the MBT should be replaced by an APC hull dedicated to infantry support in order to simplify production, logistics, and training. Stryker and Boxer follow this concept pretty well.
The other concept is to replace the MBT in the support role with something like the WW2 "Assault Gun" concept. The Stryker MGS was supposed to be exactly that, but the platform was simply too light/small for it to be successful. The US Army's new M10 Booker might be a good solution, especially as it is based on the proven Bradley chassis. Reduce the turret of the standard Bradley to a multi-role RWS (with Javelin) and this is pretty much what the article is talking about.
Steve
WW2 Canadians did this, and pretty succesfully so;
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/kangaroo
It's an article on changing Priests (SP-guns) and tanks to APC's in ww2
-
47 minutes ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:
That may be a language issue, but I do not see the contradiction between fear and selfishness. Fear is often (perhaps mostly) a very selfish emotion. People may fear for others, but mostly fear things which may cause harm to themselves. And when one fears for others, it is mostly for people who are close to him in some way or another, so arguably also in those cases it is not exactly altruistic.
Fear is an out of our control emotion, like pain and sorrow, compassion and grief, anger and even love. Those happen whether you like it or not. You may try to resist them or deny them, but there is no way to avoid them.
Selfishness on the other hand is a very controllable personal CHOICE.
We may not feel it that way or do not want to feel it that way, or we may not be conscious of it, but in order to be selfish you have to make a decision.
Simplified:
Selfish = free will,
Fear = no free will.
-
5 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
I agree most people are not brutal, but the majority of people are selfish. The way totalitarian regimes work is that the few (brutal) convince the majority to mind their own business (selfish) instead of opposing the regime's activities. That is how the Putins and the Kims and the Xis of this world stay in power, not because the majority of people are kind and altruistic.
I've got a few thousand years of documented history to back me up on this
Steve
Perhaps it is my naive positivity again, but It looks to me that for most people FEAR comes before selfishness.
It is fear that drives us to make "bad" decisions. And with "bad" I mean bad for the long term collective. Which is selfish, I agree, but the reason is fear.
Being afraid of getting into trouble, afraid of being different, afraid of failing, afraid of being an outcast.
Afraid of not having enough money, not getting enough appreciation, not being pretty or sporty or intelligent enough.
Scared of being alone, of speaking one's mind, of lacking of basic needs, of lacking love, and so on and so forth.
I believe that if we humans could, or would, be a little less scared, selfishness would lessen considerably. And as a weird by-product of that being less afraid, dictators would have less grip on people.
But I know, current times do not reduce fears at all, and the global ****show gets worse before things get better. Eventually though, things will get better again.
-
14 hours ago, dan/california said:
Whereas Russian morale...they don't have any.
Well, I'm not even a half-heavy drinker, but if I had to be an ordinary soldier in the Russian army, I'd probably try to be drunk 24/7, too.
-
Some of the interesting observations in this vid:
- Drones make Javelin obsolete
- Russians use Kornets in stead of tanks for defense (which makes life even harder for Ukraine -attackers, unfortunately)
-
1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:
Interesting. This was a launched weapon of some sort. You can see it launching from the woodline and if you look carefully after you can see at least one Russian in that position. This is VERY close range, perhaps 25m or so. That's way too short a distance for most ATGMs to arm.
What it looks like to me is the missile traveled for only 15m or so then boosted and covered the remaining distance to impact the CV-90. The explosion indicates either the warhead was armed or that it struck ERA (if Ukraine has stuck any on).
Curious.
Steve
In the movie "RED" (or its sequel) a revolverbullet hits an incoming RPG-rocket. Tv-show "mythbusters" had an episode that showed that such an unlikely hit was in fact a real (very rare) possibility.
Could it be that a round from the CV90 gun hit the incoming missile?
-
4 hours ago, Carolus said:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/Barrage_balloon_fsac_1a35100.jpg
Dumb question, but can barrage balloons help against things like Shahed drones? That only follow a programmed path and can't fly very high?
Not for troops, obviously, but cities or facilities far behind the front. To reduce the need for AA coverage.
Believe it or not, like so many things, this was already discussed.(Page 1615 first mention of barrage balloons.)
I for one thought there would be more use of balloons and/or netting, but neither side seems to use any barrage-balloons, it seems.
How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
Thank you for the kind words and the addition.
Like with so many subjects, things are much more complicated than the simple explanation/description I used in my "ruthless or forgiving"-post. There's more to it. After ww2 ended, hardly anyone would, or could, really believe that the committed atrocities during the war could be as bad as they were. No smartphones, no Youtube, no Twitter in those days. So maybe it was easier to forget and forgive in those days.
My personal feelings do not always correspond with my rational and "factual" observations. I write about "forgiving", but I do struggle with that concept. Because although I consciously understand that refraining from revenge, and trying to empathize with "wrong-doing" people really will - how counter-intuitive it may sound - improve things in the long run, my gut-feelings struggle to accept that.
I feel that if I were in power, and I could catch people like Putin and Prigozhin and Utkin alive, or the ones that were responsible for the abduction of the Ukranian kids that were taken to Russia, or the soldiers that tortured and killed ordinary people just for fun, etc, that I would summary execute them. No questions asked.
Rabid Russian-supporting politicians? Bullet in the back of the head, no sorrow, no guilt. And no need for trials or laywers. No doubt, no hesitation. That is how I feel. I'm beginning to look like idiots as Stalin, Hitler and Saddam!
And then the difficulty really starts.. The Crimean-conundrum starts. Because, where do I draw the line? Traitors? Sure, they can be shot on site. But what about people who had a shop or business and supplied the Russian Army? Should they be shot? Imprisoned? Flogged?
And what about Ukrainian people who "only" had a Russian flag out in front of their house? Not because they liked the Russians, but because they were scared. What to do with those? What about the people who didn't support Ukraine, but didn't support Russia either? Do we consider them cowards?
I don't know. And the Ukrainians probably don't know. But I hope they are more prone to understanding, then to get even.
Maybe my peace-loving posts do not make it very clear, but I admire the Ukrainians. They are without a doubt on the moral high ground, so far. They care about their own soldiers and civilians, and they sometimes even care about the Russian soldiers(!!!). They can't get air-superiority, and they cannot fight on even terms, because they cannot (the West would not like that) go berserk on Russian territory where a lot could be gained ( Only one brigade on the loose on Russian soil, imagine that!), and that must feel like being in a fist-fight with one hand tied behind your back.
I really hope this war ends before the climate-change will end it.