Ultradave

I’m not sure that makes it better either. “Ukraine didn’t sink it. We managed to catch it on fire which spread to the magazines and the explosion caused so much damage it eventually sank in bad weather.” Seems more honorable to have lost it to combat, even if was a case where they shouldn’t have. Dave

Neutrons are not stopped well by steel. To stop neutrons you need hydrogenous material - water, plastic. Gamma rays are stopped well by steel. The ceramics used fall somewhere in the middle. Concrete is used as shielding for example, and atomic mass wise is in the ballpark of ceramics. Steel can be pretty much transparent to neutrons, a fact we have to take into account in shield designs where a structure may be made up of a web of steel beams. A transverse stiffener in a wall can be a superhighway for neutrons in a direct line of it. Dave

This is the typical story, and is wildly innacurate. It's an "enhanced radiation weapon". The idea behind it is that the enhanced radiation will penetrate the thick armor of tanks, and yes, kill or incapacitate the crew. However, they are STILL nuclear weapons, with massive blast effects. The "neutron bombs" planned were about the same power as normal thermal fission weapons of the time. They just cause LESS destruction than a comparable thermal fission weapon of the same size, but LESS is a very nebulous term when you are talking about multiple KT range nuclear weapons. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 10-20KT weapons. A neutron weapon would cause maybe 30%-50% the blast yield of those. Dwell on that nugget for a while. There is no leave the cities and towns intact unless the weapons are detonated in the middle of nowhere. Another point is that gamma rays are like extremely high energy X-rays. Neutrons are bullets. AND they activate elements making them radioactive. Steel and it's constituent alloys, for example (Iron, cobalt, manganese). They then become radioactive with varying half lives depending on isotopes. The Cobalt used in hardened steels is the most concern because of its 5.27 year half life. Most of the others are in the neighborhood of an hour to 6 weeks or so. Since there is blast there is also downwind fallout. Prevailing weather I believe, is not favorable to the Russians for fallout (but do they even care, really?) Anyway, the whole neutron bomb leaving the infrastructure intact stuff is a wild exaggeration. Dave

This is the ENTIRE reason why in the past there was a large effort to eliminate IRBMs and tactical (battlefield) nuclear weapons (and why my Army nuclear weapons secondary specialty is no longer relevant ) They are destabilizing weapons. Back at the height of the Cold War when we had some 30,000 nuclear weapons to the USSRs 40,000, many, many of those were tactical weapons, and a fair number if IRBMs. IRBMs are a problem because they naturally are closer to the the other guy, and therefore any warning time is much reduced, which means decision time (do we respond? what is this really?) is close to zero. No one thought back then that a it was possible to employ tactical/battlefield nuclear weapons and have it remain at that level, but rather than it would very quickly escalate to a full nuclear exchange. It was in both the US and USSR interest to eliminate them. Which leads to the fairly recent hate and discontent about the IRBM treaty, which both sides accuse the other of violating, but more so the Russians violating. The administration's position was to just scrap the treaty rather than try to fix things, allowing more IRBMs, and reverting back to destabilization, rather than try harder to fix the issues. US objections were Russian tests of potentially nuclear capable missiles that violated the range limitations. Russia denied this but it's hard to hide missile tests. Russian objections were of our proposed ground based missile interceptors to be based in Poland (mostly). The objection was the launchers *could* be used as well for IRBMs. They were actually correct, even though there were no plans to do so. Pres. Obama received criticism for "removing" missile defense from Europe. However that missile defense did not yet exist - vaporware from the Bush admin - and replaced it with an immediately deployable and incrementally upgradable system, which also had the side benefit of eliminating Russia's objections. Over the years there has been a lot of careful tiptoeing around nukes, all with the intent of making sure that they wouldn't be used carelessly (not sure that's the right word). Not to destabilize the balance that keeps them from being used. More recently there has been more belligerence over nuclear weapons, reinstating more tactical nukes, along with rhetoric indicating they could be used. Dangerous stuff that in the past was avoided. None of which answers the question about whether Putin might use a tactical nuke or what the US might do in response - would we respond in kind by hitting a Russian column/depot, just over the border into Russia, in response to use against a country we technically, don't have an obligation to? That's uncharted territory, although, not for the US DoD, I'm sure. There are undoubtedly scenarios being discussed. Dave PS - most important thing I learned about nuclear artillery was how to safely blow them into little tiny pieces so that they wouldn't fall into Soviet hands as they overran us in Germany.

OMG that is perfect! At first I thought it was a joke, then I found a nice article on NPR.org. I think Pres. Zelensky needs to send Putin a nice letter, with some newly issued stamps for postage. Dave

You know what they say about assuming, right? There are military, ex-military, and importantly, residents of Ukraine posting here. I for one, have learned a lot, with the minimum (sure there is some) of extraneous weirdness. I confess I must have missed the part about ancient aliens. Dave

First part is Steve's quote. Yes, as Steve has mentioned somewhere else, the fact I was a paratrooper for years is reason to question my intelligence or sanity, or both. And yet, I had a career as a nuclear engineer after the Army, so I wasn't completely brain dead (or some words to that effect ) For me personally, my parents paid for my freshman year of college and told me I'd have to figure it out from there. That was what they could afford. As it happened, I had a few friends who were in Army ROTC and told me, "Come on, try it, you'll like it." That led to a 3 years ROTC scholarship and regular Army commission, with my university completely paid for. Good deal. Just had to pay them back with some years, sweat and blood. Still a good deal. College would certainly have been out of reach for me otherwise. Artillery and Airborne - figured I'd want my time in the Army to be exciting and challenging and I got my wish. Dave PS - I might ad that this is fairly typical of junior officers. More Army officers come from ROTC than from West Point each year.

And what seems to be missing is the lack of effective use of all that firepower, even locally within one BTG. The issue if each BTG operating in a vacuum with just its own assets precludes the massing or re-directing of fire support to where it is most needed. Easy for me to criticize from here, but it’s hard to imagine why lessons like this weren’t learned and acted on in the first 2 weeks. Dave

And another thing If BTGs are short on manpower vs TOE, you can't short a tank crew without taking a tank of action. You CAN however, reduce the size of infantry squads being carried and nominally still have X number of infantry squads, carried by the TOE number vehicles. Another check the box for ineffective infantry. Dave

Rather than missing anything, I might just amplify on these couple of points. It's definitely true that their BTG scheme is not something new. Very similar ideas have been used for years. For the US, Company Teams, Battalion Task Forces, and Brigade Combat Teams are common. a. Ineffective infantry support seems to be a very large issue. The Russians apparently expected to roll on in, not have to dismount, wave at the newly happy liberated Ukranians and take a victory lap. No need for the infantry to dismount and clear out ambush spots. Ineffective? They might be effective if any effort was made to utilize them. Severe lack of adapting to situations on the ground. b. Another thing missing (to me) is serious artillery prep. While there is a lot of artillery in use, the artillery and air support seems to be doing more damage to cities than it is to suppressing likely AT ambush spots (treelines, etc). That fire support should be hitting the ground just ahead of the BTG movement and considering the way things have gone - to both sides as they move, since they are mainly keeping to roads in the north, from what I've seen. And not just called in when 2 or 3 vehicles get hit by ATGMs. By that time it's way too late. The suppression needs to be ahead of the BTG, to prep the way. It should all be preplanned and coordinated with movement, and not reacting to the enemy. Make THEM react, cover up, leave. c. This part I don't know. In the US a Brigade Combat Team is a more or less permanent organization. Company Teams and Battalion Task Forces are designed to be flexible in their cross attachments, depending on objective and opposing forces. The Russian BCT seems to be more of a one size fits all organization designed specifically for movement and breakthrough. I'm not sure it's suited to the type of actions we've seen in the north. An infantry heavy/tank light TF with plenty of fire support would be more suited. For c., maybe someone who knows more about the Russian's organization can chime in and apologies if I've missed it. Sometimes I skim these pages to keep up. I know the infantry lack of usage has been discussed. I don't understand why after this time they haven't adapted better. Dave

Summary article in this morning's The Times, about halfway down mentions an attack on Dnipro using Kalibr missiles fired from sea. While they outrange a Harpoon, or whatever ASM Ukraine is being newly provided, this kind of attack may become a little more dicey for Russia if the Ukrainians start slinging ASMs back at the ships launching Kalibrs. One can hope anyway. Dave PS - not sure how The Times paywall works so I've pasted the relevant paragraph below (I subscribe). "The Defence Ministry in Moscow said “high-precision sea-launched Kalibr missiles” had been used in the attack yesterday against four S-300 launchers concealed in a hangar on the outskirts of the Ukrainian city of Dnipro." Ukraine, BTW, says they missed and that their S-300s were not destroyed. Or maybe they weren't even there. They don't say ( no surprise )

Deleted. Not worth it. Dave

All true, however everything he said about Saddam ending his WMD program after Clinton's 1999 bombing campaign turned out to be correct. His reputation has been justifiably trashed because of his later scummy actions. Dave

Ludicrous it may be but at this point that's about what's left of the "victory" that they could actually claim to. I didn't claim it was valid or sane. Dave

Not surrender, but cut losses and withdraw, and somehow claim victory - taught them a lesson, blah, blah. Dave

And I haven't seen evidence they are capable of doing so since the invasion began.

I had some experience with the British and Canadian armies as well (brief experience) but came away VERY impressed with their NCOs, from junior NCOs to SGMs. Just outstanding. Don't have a good idea of their background but really I don't think it matters. The professionalism of the NCOs and that they pass down to the soldiers under them is the key, regardless of background. It's part of the task - take a bunch of young soldiers from widely different backgrounds and mold them into an effective team. Dave

My opinion (worth what you paid for it), is that it has more to do with lack of discipline and professionalism in the army. That's an indictment of the NCO corps and the junior officers. Nothing we haven't talked about there. Lots of my troopers came from rural areas in the South of the US. Lots of them. BUT they were well trained and the NCOs that were my team sergeants were the best in the business. There was never a question that our guys would behave. Dave

Well, considering Russia was one of the guarantors of Ukrainian peace in return for giving up the nuclear weapons stationed there, you wouldn't expect them to abide by such minor niceties as this, would you? Dave

A few things I noticed. Her opinion seems to be that the levels in the Red Forest could not lead to acute radiations sickness. Interesting. I have to do about 3 sets of conversions from that map to come up with something I can use for dose. I'll see if I can do that (that's just external dose from contamination, not internal, which is a real wild card - how much dust inhaled/swallowed). Another thing is her comment about the worst case at Zaporizhzhya being a nuclear explosion. No, absolutely not. That plant is similar in design to western PWRs and it CANNOT under any circumstances ever, explode in a nuclear explosion, nor can any other reactor plant anywhere in the world. It's physically impossible. Even Chernobyl, with its bizarre and unsafe design, was a violent steam expansion followed almost simultaneously by a massive hydrogen detonation. It was a huge explosion that spewed fission products all over Europe but was not a nuclear explosion. The firefight there was concentrated around office buildings. The containment structures are extremely robust, designed to shrug off the impact of a jet airliner crashing on them. Note that Fukushima's containments were of a MUCH older design, and the spent fuel was stored outside the containment - still in a closed building but not the robust reactor containment. The Zaporizhzhya plant and other Ukranian plants are a much more recent design Comments about worst case at Chernobyl sound reasonable, with the exception that the IAEA said that even without power, the spent fuel is safe being cooled by natural circulation. The major worry would be dust and particles carried aloft by conventional explosives as part of a battle, and while that's not good, the scale of that would be pretty minor compared to the original Chernobyl accident. As for the research reactor, I don't know much about the design but I read that it's a subcritical assembly. So my guess is fuel rods made of low enriched uranium, that require a neutron source to operate it in order to made scientific/physics research data readings. We had one like this in college. It was in the basement of our academic building, with classrooms on the same floor, no shielding. You can hold the fuel rods in your hands safely. A direct hit on it would scatter pieces of those around possibly. Little danger from those - it would be hard to turn them to dust. There are most likely many other small sources used for experiments and calibrating instrumentation. These tend to be encapsulated in resin or plastic. In explosions, they could surely be scattered around, but we're not talking about a huge number or amount - discrete pieces. Caveat here - I don't know much about the actual facility but what I've read sounds very similar to if they blew up our department building at college. Since the Russians have left Chernobyl and no more shooting is happening at Zaporizhzhya I think the worst fears are past. Seems that everyone has taken a step back and realized that the reactor plants should be left alone. I know that the IAEA has been doing a lot of diplomacy to encourage this attitude, so hopefully things will be more sane. Surprise this article dated today didn't mention any of the withdrawal, rotation of personnel, etc. Hope that helps. Dave

Cool. Pretty interesting. Do we know that this is where they were? Dave

There are reports that at least one Russian soldier has died from radiation exposure from their little adventure in the forests around Chernobyl. It's only been a week or two. Based on that, I'd estimate that he received 3-6 Gy total dose, or about 300-600 rem, possibly more (as much as 10Gy or 1000rem). Remember for some contrast and perspective your yearly background is about 0.003Gy (300 MILLIrem). A whole body CT or PET scan gives about .008-.012 Gy (about 1.0 rem). Chest X-ray is a small fraction of that. Because of my cancer I've had 3 PETs and about 6 CTs (all full body) over the last 3 years, with no ill effects, as would anybody. That's about .1 Gy (10rem) over several years. About .5 Gy (50rem) is the cutoff where below that single acute dose there are no measurable effects on the body. (This is the consensus of the American Nuclear Society and the Health Physics Society - I helped write the public statement explaining the ANS stance). These soldiers received massive doses of radiation. No way to tell how much was internally ingested and how much was external from the soil. A lot of each I'd guess. I think being in a wooded area would mean more from the soil than if they were in open areas. In the Chernobyl cleanup a LOT of topsoil was removed to remove the contamination as much as possible, at least put it all in one area. That would have been MUCH harder to do in the middle of a forested area and I don't know if that was even done or just set off as a higher level exclusion zone. Might try to find out. Kind of a stream of consciousness there but hopefully the estimates of the numbers will give an idea of just how much the increase in radiation is compared to what we're all used to on a normal basis. I'll finish with the thought that if this one soldier died in a week, we would expect quite a few more deaths within the next 3 -4 weeks. It's *possible* that after that, the remainder may recover, maybe. And by recover, I mean not die right away. Their futures might be bleak, with greatly increased cancer risk. Dave PS - one thing I thought of. The radiation mechanism for CT and PET is different. For CT is really a fancy X-ray machine with software that builds up a 3d picture of the scan. The PET is created by injecting you with radioactive FDG (flouro-dyoxy-glucose). The fluorine is attached to glucose and the PET scanner reads the decay radiation from it. Cancer cells are MUCH more active than normal cells and will preferentially absorb the glucose. It has a very short half life (decays really fast), so that it basically lights up cancerous areas. So mostly internal radiation from wherever the glucose goes, along with the briefer CT they do to map the results. (More stream of consciousness)

This is pretty good news. Things at Chernobyl sound pretty much back to normal or getting there. At least normal for Chernobyl https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/update-41-iaea-director-general-statement-on-situation-in-ukraine?fbclid=IwAR18LbQ1A3bKgy7AHcq0gpEdbzkN8jRhbjd-weL5ee82n-1aRJPwHwpORhc Dave

Doesn’t need to be a famous photo. We always jumped like that. It was hard to walk up the ramp of the aircraft. Sometimes you even needed help. Really it was a relief to get on the ground and out of the parachute harness. At least then you could do some load management and you weren’t hogtied anymore. Parachute harnesses are TIGHT ( with good reason )

I hear you there. Dave