Vet 0369
-
Posts
1,332 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by Vet 0369
-
-
4 hours ago, chrisl said:
the funny thing is that they refloated the fleet (because he destroyed it on the first day of a two week exercise) and he did it again. Then they just kept changing rules until they validated that they could defend themselves from conventional attacks that they were designed for and pretended attackers would do what they were asked. Or something like that.
Fixed targets like the kerch bridge are somewhat easier to defend against drones. Basically a lot of nets. Torpedo nets to several meters deep and up a few meters above the surface for the speedboat drones, birdblock/deer net for the aerial drones (probably so much plastic it will consume a month of russian oil) and radars/missiles for ships and planes. Like a huge aviary. Ships basically have to be turned into minesweepers/fishing trawlers with nets hanging from bow mounted cranes to get the same kind of net coverage. On the positive side, they can probably feed the crew from all the sea life they sweep up in the nets.
I used to hate war games where there were “rules” on what we could or couldn’t do. History is full of events wher an opponent didn’t “play by the rules” and the other got smeared because they didn’t think the “inferior” opponent was smart enough to be innovative enough to beat the crap out of them.
i’ve never understood the concept unless it was structured specifically to determine is something was or was not possible, and then to determine the best possible defense against it. One doesn’t do that by designing a training operation and putting rules in place to ensure one gets the results one wants. If one is trying to train some one to “think on their feet,” one doesn’t do that by saying “Oh, but you can’t do this or that. This is one of the reasons one should play CM missions with as many different opponents as possible. No one thinks or sees the the same way. IF EVERYONE’S THINKING THE SAME THING, SOMEONE’S NOT THINKING!
-
On 3/14/2024 at 3:16 AM, Carolus said:
Yeah, it seems strange. If what he says is true, then Ukraine leadership should reassess their targeting.
Just a thought, but can any one say, with any certaincy that some of the European aid ISN’T predicated on Ukraine NOT hitting those targets?
-
On 3/13/2024 at 12:02 AM, Kinophile said:
Not sure of the timeline. It's much lower there so is it possible the engine burned through its support and fell? Puts this vid after the seen ones where its higher with flames. Engine matches.
Still, four engines down to 3 and it pancakes? Can't even level off?
Pilot might have already retarded the throttles and power control levers for landing, or pilot or copilot might have panicked and thrown the fuel-cutoffs to all engines.
-
On 3/12/2024 at 11:15 PM, Kinophile said:
Il-76 Engine fell off, as cause?
Probably por, shoddy, or lack of maintenance. Virtually all large turbine engines on commercial and military engines are secured with three large bolts, a thrust bolt just aft of the intake (the largest) and two sway bolts on either side of the exhaust module to prevent it from swaying fron side to side. Amazing eh!
-
47 minutes ago, Astrophel said:
Pope Francis is 87. Surely there should be a retirement age for people claiming to be world leaders.
The Pope is NOT a World leader in the sense of a Government. He is a “World Leader”only in the fact that he is the leader of all the Roman Catholic Christens. He is the head of a religious organization. I applaud his adherence to his religious beliefs of peace and non violence. Much better than the Pope during WWII who might not have been directly involved in deporting Jews to Germany, and SS and other criminals using the Vatican to flee, but he certainty didn’t work to thwart them either.
-
12 hours ago, FancyCat said:
Broken clock my ***, the Republican speaker of the House is holding up Ukraine aid, including that essential rearmament funding. Despite the majority of his party being for it, majority of the country for it.
Here we go again! Some folks just can’t seem to avoid getting sucked into the political discussion quagmire.
-
On 3/9/2024 at 5:30 AM, Kraft said:
@Battlefront.com I think this is the highest quality upload of your favorite river crossing, sadly quite short and not while they attempted it, the carnage must've surpassed what any movie could ever portait.
Wasn’t this attempted crossing like a year or two ago? This old brain vaguely remembers the same pictures, of course not of the same quality. Am I wrong? If I am, it’s time to retire. ….Wait a minute, I’m already retired for more than seven years!
-
16 hours ago, Pete Wenman said:
Don't think this has been posted earlier but the Army trying some new tech here.
Airborne soldiers do some smart shooting with new sight that helps smash drones.
verrrrrry Interrresting! The sight looks like a very useful piece of kit. Really brilliant call to have soldiers who don’t usually use firearms such as medics and drivers as opposed to infantry who are usually very used to using the rifles. Much more accurate data on whether it acrypually increases a rate of hits.
-
1 minute ago, paxromana said:
Unidentified Floating Objects!
Or UKRAINIAN floating objects!
-
2 minutes ago, Kinophile said:
Lol
The disappearances have usually been accompanied by bright lights and loud noises. Could this be UFOs?
-
8 hours ago, Kinophile said:
Well, its Russians saying 12 (ie, a lie) so double that as a rule of thumb.
Perhaps it isn’t a lie. Perhaps those are the total number of under strength crew on the boat?
-
16 hours ago, The_MonkeyKing said:
Yeah! Here is the vid
Thank you, that was excellent! The music sounded like a “ Sea Chanty” to this old Devil Dog New Englander! The fiddle and drum beat actually had me tapping my foot and smiling from ear to ear!
-
On 3/4/2024 at 4:58 AM, Beleg85 said:
Could be a little difficult. "Guys, I am going for shopping to newest Krauss-Maffei Wegmann tank dealer saloon, do you need anything?"
Most countries by that time were discouraged from selling any serious, top-shelf military eqipment to UA. I think we all agreed it was wrong policy, so no point in further beating dead horse.
Well, to be fair, there is a specific reason that NO NATO country will sell (or give) their latest and greatest weapon systems to Ukraine. Please reference the pictures of the knocked out Abrams (along with others of Leopards, Bradley’s, et Al). It is a thing called “technological security.” One just doesn’t send their best and highest technology to a situation where the technology can end up being looted!
Case in point, when I was stationed in Japan as a mechanic on USMC F4-J Phantom II in 1970, the USN wouldn’t allow Us to send any into Vietnam because they were “too new, and would constitute a security risk!” And those would have been used in Direct Support of our own Marines on the ground!
-
11 hours ago, Chibot Mk IX said:
First rule of Aerial warfare. Divide the wartime claimed kills by 3 (sometime even have to divide it by 7)
Also, Russia could develop then filed something similar to ADM-160 MALD decoy missile/drone.
Yes! This is one of the main reasons that gun cameras were added to fighters. A kill also had to be confirmed by another pilot.
-
2 hours ago, Harmon Rabb said:
The big question I have is what happened to all the Abrams and 155mm long-range Arty from when the Commandant restructured the USMC. Were they transferred to the Army in case Canada or Mexico attack us, or Russia arracks U.S. across the Bering Straites? Why can’t those weapons be sent to Ukraine?
-
3 hours ago, JonS said:
Well, yes. Is there somewhere else you think it should rest?
Here in the U.S., it rests with the Legislative Branch (Congress), not the Executive Branch (President). That is how it is specified in our Constitution. Only Congress can declare war! Of course, the Executive Branch has found ways to get around that little speed bump and Congress has lost the guts to stop the President from doing it, but I don’t think even the Cowardly U.S. Politicians in Congress can claim it is not a war if NATO declares an Article 5.
-
11 hours ago, Grigb said:
No. but we have:
- 40% mobiks
- 50% contract soldiers who signed contract after start of the war
- 10% contract soldiers who signed contract before start of the war
- 10% others
Mobiks and contract soldiers can be privates or low-ranking non-commissioned officers only. As a result, officers could only make up 10% of the total.
Hmm. 40+50+10+10 = 110%. How does that work?
-
4 hours ago, cesmonkey said:
Why does 19th century US Cavalry Officer Fetterman come to mind?
-
22 hours ago, Sequoia said:
I think we both agree that far too many politicians have and continue to put their own ambition and status above the good of the country. I strongly suspect a strong streak of vanity and desire for power are necessary qualities one needs to enter into politics.
I have seen exceptions. When I lived and worked in Wichita, KS, in the 1970s, a “first-timer” was running for Congress. He promised to send a synopsis of all major bills to his constituents each month to poll how they wanted him to vote on the Bill. I took a chance and voted for him, even though his party wasn’t the one which I usually agreed. He followed through on his promise by sending the poll to ALL constitutes in his District. Until he was appointed Secretary of Agriculture by President Obama. Even though I didn’t necessarily agree with all his positions, I respected him.
-
6 hours ago, Kraft said:
What a squealing little worm.
I know LotR is more popular here (for good reasons) but he reminds me of that rat of Ronald Weasely who turned out to be a cowardly traitor
I believe you are misremembering. Ron Weasley had a hand-me-down familiar that was a rat named Scabbers. It turned out that was a wizard named Pettigrew who gave the location of Harry Potter’s parents to Voldemort who killed them.
-
4 hours ago, The_Capt said:
My overall point stands - there is a magic point in time and space when the right general meets the right moment, with the right army; this is consistent throughout history. And so the inverse - which is frankly more frequent. Perhaps that is what we are seeing in Ukraine...question is: which one?
I can completely agree with this assessment.
-
5 hours ago, billbindc said:
Have to quibble: Grant did fight at the start of the war and he did not fight at all like Lee. He also had a very clear sense of the strategic goals of his moves right from the beginning. I agree that Lee made the calculation you did above but he was very muddy on how to get there.
Yes, this is correct! Grant’s victories in the West, some times against the express “wishes” of his Commander, against his former West Point classmates, were where he gained the nickname “Unconditional Surrender” (US) Grant for his refusal to accept an enemy commander’s surrender with “terms.”
-
29 minutes ago, billbindc said:
There are several layers to it. In crude terms, it's that Zalushny has a different vision going forward for how to fight the war that includes, inter alia, very large mobilization and an emphasis on drone warfare. He also feels quite comfortable talking outside the chain of command and in public to attempt to make his vision of the war apply going forward. Zelensky has what could be described as a more political take on the war but really it seems like the biggest issue is that he believes that the civilian primacy over the Ukrainian commander should be complete. It should not be a competition, whatever tensions may exist within the relationship and Zaluzhny has to some degree made it one...even if with pretty good intentions.
I tend to agree with Zalushny's assessment in military terms but I think in the long run Zelensky has the right of it. If Ukraine is really going to reject the "Eurasian" model Putin sells than it has to fully buy into elected, civilian control of the security services writ large.
My 2 hryvnia.
I have to agree with Billdc 100%. For the most part, politians should set the limits, and then get the hell out of the way and let the military minds guide and control the battle. As I see it, most of the issues I saw during the Vietnam Conflict, a strictly political conflict, were caused by the politicians butting in and controlling the military. Before that, the most public incident was during the Korean Conflict and involved MacArthur publicly challenging Truman, and was removed from command because of it.
The Zalushny sounds almost identical to MacArthur in that he is publicly challenging his Commander in Chief. I expect it will have the same result if he doesn’t back off.
-
On 1/31/2024 at 9:07 PM, billbindc said:
I lead a complicated life.
Hmmm, what does Department of Transportation pop into my mind?
How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted · Edited by Vet 0369
Clarity
Hey, here’s a thought, maybe Belgorod can hold an election and vote to become part of Ukrain!