Vet 0369
-
Posts
1,321 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by Vet 0369
-
-
On 1/16/2024 at 3:47 PM, A Canadian Cat - was IanL said:
If you are already operating at the air field just hit them taxiing or hell parked even.
Nah, just fly them down an intake and destroy the engines while they’re parked if they’re in the open. Shouldn’t be difficult, a running engine can suck a ground crew down an intake when it powers up to taxi, so a small drone shouldn’t have much trouble flying down an intake.
-
On 1/16/2024 at 2:41 PM, Haiduk said:
Bradley dismountles abandoned Russian BMP-2 near Avdiivka - video from close range
Excellent fire discipline at about1:40 through 1:50. I’m assuming the rifle has a burst or auto function, but he is snapping off single shots. Also, the automatic fire you can hear in the background is three to five round bursts. Good fire discipline saves A LOT of ammo!
-
On 1/15/2024 at 10:02 PM, chrisl said:
Or dive underneath with the shaped charge pointing up.
Like the Soviet antitank dog mines during WWII? It wouldn’t be very difficult considering the clearances under most tanks, then someone would have to invent an “anti drone curtain” to prevent them! Think of the profits!!
-
16 hours ago, sburke said:
Wonder if that is the new Russian Army slogan - "be the meat".
Nah, it’s gonna be “l’ve got the meat right here!”
-
On 1/8/2024 at 3:13 PM, JonS said:
Despite the way MacArthur screwed them over, I think the Aussies played the long game much better there.
MacArthur screwed over everyone except the U.S. Army. He seemed to greatly dislike the U.S. Marines in particular.
-
On 1/8/2024 at 2:59 PM, The_Capt said:
Yeesh, dude...what a man does in the privacy of his own home...I draw the line at small rodents though.
Too loose?
-
5 hours ago, sburke said:
are you asking because you don't think they have one now? and umm, they did win ww2 and pretty much obliterated the axis powers and frankly their economic advantage in ww2 was pretty massive. I mean hell look at the comparison in carrier fleets between Japan and the US and that was the secondary theater as far as the democracies were concerned.
let's not even begin to talk tank production etc.
Not really a very accurate balance when using Japan. Japan actually wanted more Battleships and Cruisers over Aircraft Carriers because their battle philosophy revolved more around the Battleship and Heavy Cruiser than air power. When it comes to the tank, the concept of “individual cold-steel” took precedence over everything else.
-
3 hours ago, kimbosbread said:
In international waters, it would have to be don’t ask don’t tell (ie Somali pirates). I don’t think you’d need to be very “high seas”. Last I checked these things are parked off India, and off Morocco.
No opposed boarding needed. Just drive by these things on a speedboat and put an RPG or 3 through the bow. Or a seababy if you want to operate from a distance. You don’t need to destroy the ship or take it over; just damage it enough it cannot move.
Yup, and potentially causes major oil spill of maybe say a couple million gallons of oil into the Indian Ocean or another near by sea!
-
3 hours ago, OBJ said:
True, @TheVulture
Turkey did decline to let Russian warships not based in the Black Sea into the Black Sea.
Only my opinion, only one I got, it is certainly a delicate situation. Minesweepers are typically considered warships. I am not aware of any minesweepers not considered warships. Certainly the argument a warship is a warship is valid.
On the other hand, I am not aware minesweepers have an offensive capability. I perceive there remains global concern about global food security, and the cost of food, as a result of the war. My impression is the Russians very much have targeted Ukraine's grain trade as a means to reduce Ukrainian economic strength, resulting in global concern for food security and cost.
If I”m not mistaken, a minesweeper can also be used to dispense mines.
-
4 hours ago, dan/california said:
The Russians on the receiving end of this must have annoyed someone.
!!!!!
Does anybody have feel for the credibility of this data? It is priceless information if it is real, and they keep updating it.
Read Dmitri every day!
Yeah, regarding the Bushnaster fire, the Russians were in Ukraine, and they were alive!
-
5 hours ago, Splinty said:
Those comics are NOT manuals. EVERYTHING the military does has an associated manual for it. Those "comics" merely contained hints on how to use the system better. My Army units would receive a box of them every few months, but we NEVER used them for training or maintenance. We would use the associated Technical or Field Manual.
Exactly as I said in my first sentence. It was just the military doing what the military does best; wasting monies.
-
19 hours ago, Sojourner said:
Maybe they need to return to the style of manual used when the M-16 was first issued...
Not sure where this fits in, sub-FM perhaps?
This was exactly the same format that the U.S. Army used for line maintenance “hints” for the gas turbine engines in tanks and Blackhawk helicopters in the 1980s that I referenced above. I don’t remember what her name was. They used two depictions, one black and one white. It’s really disgraceful that they had to use “comics” to train the soldiers to even maintain their weapons!
-
3 minutes ago, danfrodo said:
This is all true, but I look at it a little more glass half full: new cars are harder to work on, but they don't break nearly as much so not as big of a deal. When I was young a car hitting 100k miles was on its last legs, having required a lot of repairs along the way. Today one expects nothing except routine maintenence before 100k miles. I greatly prefer the latter.
That was really more dependent on whether or not the owner properly maintained the vehicle. Regular oil changes and other preventative maintenance worked wonders. In the 1970s, hitting 250,000 miles on an engine was common on properly maintained cars trucks, and vans. Especially the Japanese vehicles. Even today, vehicle user manuals recommend changing the oil at about 3,500 miles and what most folks don’t realize, flushing and changing the brake fluid on anti-lock brake systems every two to four years because the brake fluid is hydroscopic, and the water can damage your anti-lock components.
-
2 hours ago, Harmon Rabb said:
For those of you who have never heard of this system before, lets read a description from RU propaganda source Sputnik. Reads like an advertisement for this thing.
Aw, come on, that’s nothing. The Russians were wiping out companies of Leopards and Bradly’s weeks before they arrived in Ukraine!
-
2 hours ago, The_Capt said:
And here you run into the force generation problem. Western training requirements are too damned high for a sustained high intensity war. Driven by equipment and complex systems, the UA cannot afford 6 month force generation time lines. It also puts the UA upside down on cost/return. They spend 6 month's training someone and lose them in 30 days...that is unsustainable.
Just another spin we were not ready for - WW2 training quantity but 21st century quality requirements. Russia solved it by dropping the first one - Ukraine and the West are still trying to figure it out.
I have read that during WW II, the prime requirement for tank driver was having been a heavy construction vehicle operator (bulldozers) or driving a tractor on a farm. Also, with many soldiers having grown up maintaining and fixing their own vehicles and farm equipment, a “field repair” by almost anyone was much easier to accomplish it because of the lack of complexity. Today, manufacturers put pushbuttons in vehicles because everything is controlled by computers and most people can’t tune or time a reciprocating engine by ear as many in my generation could. I lament that I can’t maintain, tune, and fix my vehicle without all sorts of computerized equipment.
-
2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
In the US we have such divisions of manuals as well. FM = Field Manual, TM = Technical Manual. FMs are for the gorillas that operate the stuff (and hit everything that doesn't work with a hammer), TM are for the refined grease monkeys sitting in the rear
TMs are also subdivided into "echelons", or at least they used to be. IIRC there are generally 2 echelons, the first being the field repair shops and the second factory repair shops. No point instructing a field repair shop how to fix something that is beyond their training and equipment.
Steve
This is pretty much correct, except that it’s a tad insulting to the “Grease Monkies,” and there is a more nuanced difference. I can’t speak to Army or AirForce manuals and maintene “levels,” but in Navy/Marine Corps Aviation, we had “Flightline,” Internediate,” and “Depot” level maintenance. The basic mechanical training for all levels was done in the same training school classes. When you finished your training, you were assigned to either a Squadron (Flightline), a Headquarters & Maintenance Facility (HAMS) Facility, or a Naval Air Rework Facility (NARF), you would receive some additional training for each, but you wouldn’t receive “a bigger hammer!” It all depended on the tooling available to you. In fact, the NARF was considered to be equivalent to the original Factory that built the engine or the airframe. When I was writing procedures for the engines on the F/A- 18A/B, we wrote for Line, Intermediate, and Depot Manuals in the same office and frequently moved from one team to another depending on need. Our most driving factor was the Navy requirement that the procedures be written at a reading comprehensive level of 9th grade or lower (for folks not familiar with U.S. education, High School, our secondary school, started at 10th grade). That was in 1985 though and might be down to 6th grade by now. In fact, the Army at that time sent out Line Maintenance instructions for armor and helicopter turbine engines in comic book form.
-
14 hours ago, OBJ said:
Thanks Vet, we agree on many things but maybe not this one.
I did a little research. I have heard a lot about this agreement without knowing anything myself. Apparently what was signed in 1994 was an agreement in which the US, Russia and the UK offered 'assurances' not to attack or coerce the minor countries, including Ukraine. I cannot find a commitment to defend the minors from aggression. If there is a bad faith actor in this it looks like Russia to me.
Assuming Wikipedia is a reliable source in this context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
"The memoranda, signed in Patria Hall at the Budapest Convention Center with US Ambassador Donald M. Blinken amongst others in attendance,[3] prohibited the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, "except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations."
https://www.npr.org/2022/02/21/1082124528/ukraine-russia-putin-invasion
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-ukraine-give-nukes-russia-us-security-guarantees-1765048
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/05/science/ukraine-nuclear-weapons.html
Well then, I obviously had bad information, and stand corrected! Thank you.
-
2 hours ago, M.Herm said:
Yanukovych was elected. Thats democracy.
So was Adolf Hitler! So, are you saying that it was wrong for his Generals to try to remove him from office with a bomb?
-
5 hours ago, OBJ said:
I think you may not understand US politics too well. I am sure I do not understand yours and others like you in your part of Ukraine. I do not have the lived history and cultural context to do so.
I am also not sure you understand NATO and the treaty obligations each member has. There is no 'nuclear opt out clause' I am aware of.
Well, to be fair, the U.S. did sign a treaty (George W. Bush) with Ukraine to protect them from foreign invasion after they destroyed their nukes after the dissolution of the USSR (or CCCP). Did the U.S. intervene with the Russian invasion of Crimea and other Ukrainian regions? NO! So, why would Ukraine or Ukrainians trust in anything the U.S. says, especially when the individual who made the decision on what to do, or more important, what NOT to do, was the Vice President of the U.S, and is now the President of the U.S. named Joe Biden!
-
9 hours ago, OBJ said:
Thanks Steve,
Yes, I agree NATO would defend itself if attacked.
To me, the question is more, if attacked, what means would NATO have to prosecute the war and how would the war be prosecuted? What else would be going on around the world when NATO was attacked? What would Xi's reaction be when things start going south for Putin?
From below, 'to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area,' is pretty broad, for me it's capability limited in the full range from just push them back to the NATO borders and ask for an armistice, or, not just regime change in Moscow, but full on cultural replacement of centuries of traditional authoritarian rule with democratic institutions, ala Germany and Japan circa 1945-on.
The UN's ability to provide collective security in this case would seem more limited than usual given permanent security council members would be attacking each other.
Article 5
“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”
Hmmmm! If NATO collectively declared an Article 5, and a United response, would Turkey open the straits to NATO vessels to passage into the Black Sea?
-
10 hours ago, The_Capt said:
Wow. So what I saw:
- lead tank with rollers got hit by a mine (front driver side) but that did not look like a standard HE mine. Might have been a shaped charge mine with a delay fuse. Basically a clever mine fuse that waits a second after being triggered by a roller so it goes off under the vehicle. Saw a lot of orange/molten which looks more like a shaped charge.
- Rear vehicles got taken out by direct fire systems, likely ATGMs but hard to see. Assuming ones in the middle also got picked off. You can see some sort of heavy direct fire tracer flying past.
Classic ambush tactic; take out the point and I’ve tail so the main body is trapped in the kill zone. The tactic is very useful in a number of different scenarios, and has need used on formations since WWII.
-
22 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
Like you said, the Patriot can be moved very easily. It could already be redeployed already, so not a problem for Ukraine to have it in place for some other threat coming up.
Steve
If AFU didn’t redeploy the Patriots IMMEDIATELY after use, they would stand a high risk of drones locating them and taking them out, so I’m pretty sure that’s what they did.
-
8 hours ago, The_Capt said:
It is interesting that CM modern titles were actually pretty conservative in modelling near-future warfare. I can recall playing CMBS and seeing a lot of these sorts of phenomenon but if one could establish a level of superiority manoeuvre was still possible. Next-Gen ATGMs alone would be game changers but add in UAS, ISR and other PGM and one can quickly see where this goes.
Of course if BFC had modeled modern warfare correctly the hue and cry from the community would have been epic. Well the next title should be interesting. Or we could all just go back to our comfort zones…like CMCW!
I don’t know, I find it amazing that both Ukraine and Russia are having so much trouble dealing with drones. Whenever I played CNBS against the Russians, those damn Tunguskas seemed to easily take down my Ravens any time I got anywhere close enough to see them!
-
23 hours ago, danfrodo said:
uhhhh, corruption? Graft and corruption in many industries don't have quite the immediate, catastrophic consequences that would occur with aircraft maintenence. Charging for but pretending to replace expensive components when required. Or using substandard components because so much cheaper. Not running proper tests but signing off as if it was done, because running tests costs labor & time. Over time, and not a very long time, corruption in maintenence would start showing up thru mix of planes having issues in the sky, some disasterous, some not.
The most recent incidents with which I was involved was just before I retired from the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was a program called “Suspected Unapproved Parts”. “A.K.A. counterfeit parts that were being sold to U.S. Air Carriers. It involved parts from non-Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) that U.S. Air Carriers purchased to maintain their fleets. This was a problem that extended across basically all major airframe and engine manufacturers products in service, and throughout most, if not all, Air Carriers in the world. The incidents that really kicked off the program were reports of incidents in engine turbine discs reported by Lufthansa.
Do you all really think the manufacturers of the SUPs have gone out of business in the last seven years? I sincerely hope they have, but I kinda effing doubt it. I was involved in aviation for more than 50 years, and i know what these “Second Source Manufacturers” are capable of!
Graft and lax maintenance are surely involved, but an inability to produce or acquire parts, even if counterfeit, are not the reason IMHO.
How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
I suspects his statements are the usual “saber rattling” to get attention. KUY would have to be completely delusional if he thinks his forces could match his Grandfather’s early successes. The conditions were completely different in 1950. The Truman Administration were afraid the SK President Park would invade NK (they were most likely right), so they refused to supply SK with heavy artillery, and SK and the U.S. Army with heavy MBTs because someone in Washington decided that MBTs couldn’t used in Korea. The U.S. Army and the ROK army were woefully under armed and untrained. That situation does not exist now, so all KUY has is to rattle his little butter knife and cry for world to do what he can’t and feed his people! His folly would end up worse than Putin’s SMO!