Vet 0369
-
Posts
1,347 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by Vet 0369
-
-
55 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
None of this changes the strategic impact of this single attack. Making a decision to pretend nothing happened and hope for the best is still a strategic decision. Because if Ukraine has more of these to use, then Russia is doing nothing to cope with them. If Ukraine never launches an attack again, the RU Nats will likely not return to the same tunes they were singing yesterday. And what they say carries weight. In fact, Grigb just posted something that suggests that ignoring the strike is already having some detrimental effect on the hardcore nationalists.
Steve
Strategically, I’d place the attack on the airbase in Crimea on the same level as the Doolittle Raid on Tokyo!
-
14 hours ago, dan/california said:
There are a lot of analogies with Guadalcanal. Bear with me on this. The Japanese eventually lost because their resupply was gradually choked down over a period of months. Some weeks they got more, some weeks they got less, but on average they didn't get enough to maintain a force that could stand up to the Marines. Even though the Marines had no shortage of problems themselves. In the end the U.S. won the logistics battle, and in an attritional fight that is really the only one that matters. And to put to mildly the Russians are less motivated than the Japanese.
It needs to be stated here that the Marines were on Guadalcanal for only about six months (August, 1942 to February, 1943). The Marines completed their basic mission “To seize and secure advanced Naval bases,” and turned over the remaining persecution of the Campaign to the U.S. Army and National Guard units, so effectively, while the Marines made the initial shock force assaults, the Army and National Guard completed it.
-
4 minutes ago, paxromana said:
Yes, 81,mm vsd 82mm - 1 mm difference. But as fart as I understand it the 120mm Mortars are exactly the same calibre.
That is likely true. As I said, I spoke from my experience as a Company Weapons Section Leader in the USMC in the 1970s. The biggest tubes we had were 81s. The Army had the 120s and IIRC, Four-Duces that were originally developed post-WWI Chemical weapons.
-
On 8/4/2022 at 10:29 AM, Taranis said:
French 120mm RTF-1 mortars use PR-14 shells (more commonly known as OE-120-F1 in the French army). They have the characteristic of having a detachable tubular tailboom at the rear when the shell leaves the mortar. I don't know though if the Russians can have the ability to shoot them. I still have a doubt because the shell is pre-rifled and the Russian mortar would therefore have to have exactly the same mortar rifling.
Now this really surprises me! Granted, it’s been more than 50 years since I had a mortar section, and technology has undoubtedly advanced in that time, but I never saw a mortar tube of any size that was rifled. All were smoothbore. In order to engage rifling in a barrel, it must be done by the round engaging the rifling as it leaves the chamber, or by expanding the base of the round itself (such as the Minnie ball round developed in the mid-19th century). A mortar round is dropped dow the tube from the muzzle, so there is no chamber, and since the round is not compressible, unless the base of the fins expand to engage the rifling, there is no need way to engage any rifling. As I said, i’s been at least 54 years since I’ve fired a mortar, so I guess it could be different now, but I can’t comprehend why they would do it. Put rifling in a mortar, and you effectively have a howitzer.
-
On 8/4/2022 at 10:19 AM, paxromana said:
Almost certainly, Russian WW2 120mm (and, from memory, even their 82 mm ones) were based on French Brandt designs - so I presume the current generation would be backwards compatible, ammo wise (unlike their artillery!)
Not necessarily so. While the tubes might have been based on the Brandt design, as was the U.S. 60mm M2 mortar, the Soviet/Russian tones use ammunition that is about 2mm larger than the Western designs. That allowed them to use captured ammunition, but prevented their opponents from using captured Soviet/Russian rounds.
-
On 7/27/2022 at 1:53 AM, dan/california said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/27/opinion/ukraine-russia-us-diplomacy.html
It is stunning that two major figures in the national security establishment can publish something this bad. Doubly so when we are on the verge of sending home the army that has been the bogey man of the last 80 years in little tiny broken pieces.
Couldn’t read The NY Times OpEd you attached. It’s behind a paywall.
-
43 minutes ago, MSBoxer said:
And yes, I believe that the U.S. use of internment camps in WWII was evil born out of prejudice and paranoia.This. No country in the world, today, or in the past is exempt from bigotry and prejudice, and no group is exempt from them either. The types of statements that the above post refers to are universal to the entire race, and attempts to excuse them by saying that “My use of (your term here) camps weren’t as evil as yours” is just an attempt to separate you (not the author of the quoted post) from the “evils” of theirs.”
-
2 hours ago, mosuri said:
I am in favor of the NATO membership 100%, but at the same time I will not expect a free ride. It does not remove the need for having an army, even if it would significantly raise the threshold of Russian aggression towards us.
Let us not forget that the reason Finland joined with the Axis during WWII, was because the Allies took too much time arguing about whether or not it would piss off The USSR which was attacking The unaligned Finland at the time. When the Western Allies (U.K. And U.S.) finally decided to help Finland, Germany have already offered to protect Finland from USSR aggression, and Finland had accepted.
-
On 7/20/2022 at 11:52 AM, sburke said:
For anyone who lives near enough to Quincy Mass.
Thank you for posting the link. It’s about 23 miles south of me. Told my wife about it, but our State rate of COVID infections is rising, so probably not for us at our ages. We do have another UKR charity we support though.
-
12 hours ago, Bearstronaut said:
Brother, no offense but it’s been over 40 years since you were in the military. I spent most of the last decade on active duty with the army and am currently a reservist. Trust me, it’s an 8 year service obligation.
https://www.arpc.afrc.af.mil/IRR/Well, live and learn, i stand corrected! Thank you for the reply. I imagine the change was due to the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Interesting that it’s codified in 10 U.S. Code. I wonder if they also changed the Selective Service Act?
-
4 minutes ago, MSBoxer said:
Colonel (Chaplain), retired in 1989 after 22 years. His final posting was in the department which was responsible for keeping in touch with retired chaplains who were still on the potential recall list. That is why it was so funny that he was recalled. Mom called the general and told him "If Chuck shows up, let me know. I have some questions for him"
He passed Jan. 1 1991, about 1 1/2 months before the liberation of Kuwait, which is why he was recalled. As my cousin said "God needed him to welcome any incoming troops"Thank you for clarifying that. As I said, an Officer is appointed by Congress, and can and may be recalled up to a certain age. It sounds to me like an administrative SNAFU.
God bless him an all of you. He served in one of the most crucial jobs in the Military.
-
22 minutes ago, MSBoxer said:
My father was recalled 2 years after retiring. It was also 2 months after he died. Oddly enough the signature on his recall orders was signed by the same general who sent his honor guard to my dad's funeral since he was dad's last commanding officer and a good friend.
Not sure how this ties into anything....still find it funny.MSBoxer, I very sorry to hear about the loss of your Father. Was he an Officer or Enlisted? If Enlisted, perhaps he had re-enlisted for four years shortly before retiring which would have him still under contract? That’s the only circumstance I can think where one could be recalled. If you still have his orders that activated him, those could shed some light on it.
-
On 7/8/2022 at 2:40 PM, Bearstronaut said:
When you enlist in the US military you sign up for 8 years. If you enlist for an active duty contract of 5 years then you still owe three years to Uncle Sam in either the regular Reserves or the Inactive Ready Reserve. The regular Reserves you do the whole “one weekend a month, two weeks a year” thing. IRR you don’t have to do a thing but the military can call you back if the crap hits the fan. After you complete the 8 year obligation I’m not sure they can legally force you back in the military. However, retirees can be called back to active duty.
To be perfectly honest, during my 12 years in the U.S.M.C (1969 to 1981), I have never heard of an “eight-year” contract. The Selective Service Act sets your obligation to six years. If some “creative” Recruiter got someone to sign a contract for eight years with those other conditions, then SHAME ON HIM OR HER and the Commanding Officer for deceiving a gullible 18 or 19-year old with such crap. I’d put them in the same category as the recruiters who deceived the young Russian Conscripts to sign contracts so the could be sent to Ukraine without their knowledge. I I served as a Recruiter for a bit, so I know some of their deceptively vague tricks, but have never heard of anyone doing eight-year contracts. Even the contracts to reenlist are from two to four years maximum.
Unless you are under contract, to the best of my knowledge, you CANNOT be forced back into the service unless you were an Officer.
-
On 7/8/2022 at 1:31 PM, Artkin said:
What is Russia's policy on recalling troops who finished their contracts already? A large portion of the "reserves" could be this pool of people.
Here in the US you can be recalled after you serve. So if you served 5 years then they can recall you back into service even if you were already out for 4 years. I believe the amount of time is the same as you served. This is what I was told by a friend.
Every male citizen in the U.S. has a six-year “obligation” to serve That is part of the Selective Service Act. Every eligible male is required to register with the Selective Service. Since we now have an “All Volunteer Service,” each individual has the choice of whether or not to “fulfill” his obligation. I f you serve two years in the military, you generally serve two years active duty and four years Active Reserve. Three years Active Duty is (I believe,) two years Active Reserves, and one year inactive Ready Reserves possibly three years Inactive Ready Reserves, and if four years Active Duty, two years Iactive Ready Reserves.At the end of those times, the man has fulfilled his six-year obligation to serve, and cannot be called up under any circumstance. An Officer, on the other hand holds his or her Commission from Congress, and can (ability) and may (permission) be recalled until a specific age, that I don’t know.
-
On 7/7/2022 at 3:51 PM, Grey_Fox said:
I think that's unfair. Many of us are just people who want to give you money for content. 1000+ page abominations like this thread don't do anything for me.
It would be nice if this forum could go back to being about Combat Mission instead of just sperging about an ongoing war. Some of us are dealing with the human consequences of it right now - there are currently 46 Ukrainian refugees living a couple of hundred meters away from my family home - doctors, lawyers, dentists, logistics managers, business people etc who have become refugees whom we interact with on a daily basis.
I think you are being unfair to this THREAD. This a thread about the war in Ukraine, not perceived upgrades to the CM line. Believe it or not, there are actually threads in other sections of the Battlefront forum where you are more than welcome to post this type of thread instead of attempting to hijack this thread.
-
1 minute ago, sburke said:
at this point I'd settle for Zamboni crew. Sharks about the same.
Honestly, I don’t other with sports any more. It got way to boring with all the championship parades. Just kidding, I never paid much mind to the State’s gladiatorial games.
-
On 7/6/2022 at 12:44 PM, sburke said:
Elvis and I are pissed- that is a Flyers goalie, and we need all the help we can get.
Are the Flyers the Bruins farm team or training team?
-
5 minutes ago, Vet 0369 said:
I’m really behind the eight ball in catching up on replies in the thread, and apologize if I’m duplicating.
I’m sorry, but I must really disagree with this statement. One of the first actions of a repressive or dictatorial government to ensure “The People” cannot remove it is to ban private ownership of weapons that could be used to combat it. In my country, the U.S.A., we have enshrined in our Constitution that “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The purpose of that right was to ensure that no Tyrantical Federal Government would be able to disarm the People (Citizens). The statement that precedes those words “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a freeState,” was added at the end of the deliberations because one Representative was afraid a Federal Government could disband the States Militias, and refused to agree until it was added. So, whatever your views and beliefs regarding private ownership of weapons, it has been the law of the land in the U.S.A. For almost 300 years, and in fact, was required by all the Colonies since the early 17th Century. Are there detractors of that right? Yes, but whether a mass murder is committed using a firearm or by driving a semi tractor trailer through a crowd on a boulevard in Southern France, the murders were not committed by the firearm or the semi tractor.
I would go a step further and enshrine the right of the citizens to keep weapons and the responsibility of every citizen to train and serve, if necessary, in a National “Militia.”
I’m sorry, I inadvertently deleted the quote of the post by Poesel on page 995.
-
I’m really behind the eight ball in catching up on replies in the thread, and apologize if I’m duplicating.
I’m sorry, but I must really disagree with this statement. One of the first actions of a repressive or dictatorial government to ensure “The People” cannot remove it is to ban private ownership of weapons that could be used to combat it. In my country, the U.S.A., we have enshrined in our Constitution that “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The purpose of that right was to ensure that no Tyrantical Federal Government would be able to disarm the People (Citizens). The statement that precedes those words “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a freeState,” was added at the end of the deliberations because one Representative was afraid a Federal Government could disband the States Militias, and refused to agree until it was added. So, whatever your views and beliefs regarding private ownership of weapons, it has been the law of the land in the U.S.A. For almost 300 years, and in fact, was required by all the Colonies since the early 17th Century. Are there detractors of that right? Yes, but whether a mass murder is committed using a firearm or by driving a semi tractor trailer through a crowd on a boulevard in Southern France, the murders were not committed by the firearm or the semi tractor.
I would go a step further and enshrine the right of the citizens to keep weapons and the responsibility of every citizen to train and serve, if necessary, in a National “Militia.”
-
5 minutes ago, sburke said:
Russians Fear Commanders Are Selling Their Own Troops’ Locations for Cash (thedailybeast.com)
That's gotta be good for morale.
LOL, PsyOps at work! Start a rumor and watch it roll.
-
1 hour ago, Jammason said:
Further, “righteous points” are scored by Russia with the change in objectives (to be sure, it requires amnesia regarding the initial invasion or a belief in the military “feint” line, which is being swallowed by the US far right): They are simply acting like the French did in support of the American Revolution (yes, the French committed troops and deployed their navy in addition to sending money and weapons). These poor Russian-speaking—and increasingly Russian identifying—republics are being denied their freedom; we, noble mother Russia, are just helping them fight for independence.
Welcome to the forum!
While you make a good argument, the major flaw I see in you’re argument is that, while there might have been some French incitement of the U.S. Revolution, it was the English colonists who rebelled (and in fact only one ninth of the population actively participated in revolt, a minority by any calculation). France didn’t contribute money or military forces until the war was almost settled and the Colonies proved they could win. In fact, the former French Colony of New France (in particular Arcadia) that Britain had taken only 15 years before the Revolution, considered joining the Thirteen Colonies in revolt, and decided not to even though they had reason to (the British were vicious in their repression of the French speaking inhabitants in Acadia). Arcadia would have been a perfect breeding ground for French incitement, but it doesn’t appear to have happened. So, your attempted corollary to the French helping in the U.S. Revolution fails.
-
14 hours ago, Grigb said:
Regarding Belarus Nukes discussion, here is quote from recent Putin-Luka meeting:
Ah yes, send us all your SU-25s, and we’ll upgrade them to each able to carry nukes. I vaguely remember the Soviet Union telling Afghanistan to send them all their vehicle batteries and they world upgrade them for free. Afghanistan gleefully sent the USSR all their vehicle batteries (including from their armor), at which point the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan.
-
On 6/23/2022 at 6:35 PM, Huba said:
Fully agreed, EU has to redefine itself in next years if it is to accept new members. Parting with unanimity is needed - Poland should be OK with this I hope, if our history teaches us something, it is that liberum veto can easily destroy a democracy.
Would that be a reference to “Exploding the Diet?”
-
15 hours ago, BornGinger said:
What is his relationship to your neigbours?
I’m sorry, I don’t understand your question.
How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
I’m sorry Steve, I usually agree with your historical insights, but as an Historian myself, I don’t agree with this assessment. The majority of Russian population was emancipated from Serfdom (basically slavery bound to the land with no more “rights than other chattel such as livestock) just 160 years ago by Tsar Alexander II, as the last of the “European” countries to ban Serfdom. Just over 50 years later, they effectively became “chattel” again under Lenin until just 32 years-ago when the Soviet Union dissolved . How long in total have the majority of the Russian populations, with the exception of the “intelligencia” and criminals been allowed to practice free-thought and free-speech without fear of punishment by those who rule them? I contend that the Russian people are so ingrained psychologically to think and act as the Serfs they have been for literally thousands of years that we can’t compare the majority of Russian people to those of the U.S. Even the existing Western Democracies such as The UK, France, Germany, and others that had Serfdom are much more inclined psychologically to accept decisions of their leaders than those troublemaking “Yankees!” (Notice I didn’t say “Americans” or “North Americans” as I consider all residents of the Continents of North and South America to be “Americans.”)