Jump to content

db_zero

Members
  • Posts

    1,553
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by db_zero

  1. 52 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

    I am not very interested in the nuke discussion, he will or he won't and it could go a million different ways.  And he probably won't.  What is for sure is he has a war to fight and also needs to hold on to power when it would seem that lots of folks want him out of power for this mess.

    And we see things like the above -- this is big stuff.  We hear that an entire security branch was jailed/sidelined.  Generals being imprisoned.  At first one might say "punishment for incompetence".  But the numbers that are being reported seem to indicate Putin is purging based on fear of these power centers staging a coup.  He may or may have evidence of coup planning, but high level purging is a big indicator of serious problems at levels close to Sauron's idiot twin. 

    When we think of collapse we think of the russian army, but collapse can also happen at the top.  Things like this make me think there's possibility of that.

    I’d prefer it was not even on the table, but Putin has raised the issue and sticking your head in the sand and pretending it will go away is the exact same mistake the West made in dealing with Putin in the past. Even Zelinsky didn’t think Putin was actually going to send in troops.

    Now we have large segments of the US in favor of a No Fly Zone and it was argued that most don’t even know what a no fly zone actually entails-a willingness to engage Russians over Ukraine and attacking ADA sites in Russia.

    You bring up nukes and now the response by many is “well most will probably be duds”

    There’s been a lot of Putin won’t do this or probably won’t do that which has proved to be incorrect.

    You go on TV and you see retired generals advocating more aggressive actions and policies that could easily lead to escalation.

    Back in 1950 the War in Korea which started out poorly suddenly changed. So did our posture and McArthur said China is nothing to be worried about…

     

  2. 1 hour ago, acrashb said:

    Wikipedia is your friend:

    Neutron bomb - Wikipedia

    As is Atomic Rockets:

    Projectile Weapons - Atomic Rockets (projectrho.com) - scroll down to the "real science neutron bomb" section, or just search for "designed to maximize lethal neutron radiation".

    Essentially, in an enhanced radiation bomb, the recipe is adjusted so that much less of the output is x-rays (which cause the blast) and much more is neutrons. I'm not an expert either, but that's what I've read.

    At the time, thought to be more effective against MBTs (which are resistant to blast) than similar-yield traditional fusion bombs.

    As for the media hype, many people become deranged by the thought of anything nuclear - there was a lot of BS floating around at the time.

    Yes, not so much, yes unless with thick concrete walls, not so much, and not really.  Earth absorbs neutrons fairly quickly.  Apparently there is some debate about use against modern tanks due to the thickness of armour.

    I used Wikipedia to refresh my memory, but we have a better source-Ultradave-this is his area of expertise.

    I figured he would chime in on this and he didn’t disappoint, now we all are better informed.

  3. There is a tactical nuke known as a neutron bomb that has a limited blast and is highly effective against tanks, dug in infantry and infantry embedded in buildings, bunkers, cellars and so on.

    It kills by giving off a high dose of radiation and those affected die by radiation sickness that takes place in hours.

    The radiation dissipates rapidly-at least that’s what was said when it was proposed to be deployed in Europe in the early 80s.

    It was very controversial at the time and no European government would accept it on its soil. The sick joke at the time was it would kill all the inhabitants but leave towns and cities intact and ready to be repopulated in a few days.

    I’m not a nuclear weapons expert so how much was actual fact and how much was media hype idk. 
     

    I think the US scrapped all it neutron bombs. Russia I don’t know if they developed them or have any but it would seem this is the sort of nuke Putin would use if he intended to dig out entrenched opposition and take over and occupy territory with minimal damage.

  4. 21 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

    I don't think so.  If you sit down and talk with someone that is in favor of a no-fly zone it quickly becomes apparent they have no idea what one is.  They think that someone declares this and suddenly the skies are free of aircraft.  When you explain to them that the US/NATO will have to shoot down Russian aircraft they start to understand it's not so easy.  Then when you explain you also have to destroy Russian air defenses, including in Belarus and Russia, they start getting a little unsure of what they said they were in favor of.  Offer them that this could possibly result in a nuclear attack by Russia against someone and now they're stumped.

    Polls suck at gauging REAL opinions about complex topics.  I don't pay much attention to them other than gauging general attitude.  Clearly the US attitude is to support Ukraine as strongly as possible.

    Steve

    I agree with what your saying and you’re perfectly logical but then I think of how many believe in conspiracy theories or listen to people that horse pills protect you from Covid and I have to wonder.

    I’ve given up trying to convince a long time friend who is quite knowledgeable in many subjects that contrails is not the government deliberately spraying mind control drugs onto people.

    We’re not talking about just a few individuals but large segments of the population.

    Back in the Cold War days you didn’t have to explain why a no fly zone involving Russia was risking WW3. Now it seems you have to sit down and convince 3/4s of the population why that’s not such a great idea and comes with huge risks.

  5. 9 minutes ago, chris talpas said:

    Not that I want to find out, but one has to wonder how well maintained is their nuclear arsenal?  Hey why spend money on something that no one thought would be realistically used.  Like I said probably better not to dwell on those types of weapons.

    Even if they have a dud rate of 50% it’s not a comfortable thought. Russia has 6000 nukes 2000 are estimated to be tactical. Even if only 20% go bang and 100% of American nukes work as advertised that’s no victory in my book.
     

    I just saw a video where only 28% of Europeans supported a no fly zone over Ukraine, but 68-72 percent of Americans want the US to impose a no-fly zone. In the recent Presidential poll most Americans want the US to do more.

    Seems like we’re slipping toward a direct confrontation with Russia.

  6. 4 minutes ago, sburke said:

    I'd think if there was a sane mind over in the Kremlin at all they'd be real scared to push the nuke button for fear they'd either just blow up in their silos or land in Russia.  Better to just threaten to use them.. kind of like they should have just used their army to threaten.

    Idk…seems like most of the people who know Putin the best say if he gets desperate enough he’ll resort to WMDs.

    Chemical weapons is regarded as something of a “normal” weapon in Russia military doctrine and tactical nukes is also regarded in a different way than they are in the West.

    There is a distinction between the large city busting ICBMs and smaller low yield tactical nukes, some of which are smaller than ones dropped on Japan as well as neutron bombs. 

  7. 2 hours ago, JonS said:

    You do understand that this war is not abstract, right? There is a "tomorrow", and an "after the war"?

    Seeding any country, let alone your own, with either FASCAM or any other cluster munition is a terrible idea.

    That's probably why Ukraine has signed and ratified the Ottawa Treaty.

    You made a good point and I forgot about the Ottawa Treaty so FASCAM is probably a no go. 
     

    There was at one time research going on with artillery that would disperse smart munitions that had radar to detect tanks and attack from the top.

    The Army did buy from Europe some smart artillery rounds designed to target tanks, so maybe these were sent or the Europeans who manufactures these rounds will just send directly as they are designed to be fired from NATO 155mm guns.

     

  8. Probably nothing more than a coincidence but on same day the White House announced they will be sharing intelligence and targeting information the Russian flagship gets hit and sunk.

    There is also a squadron of F-18 Wild Weasels operating in Europe and it was mentioned in a report they are capable of using their capabilities hundreds of miles away from within NATO airspace. These aircraft do more than just jam radars…

    Like I said nothing more than a coincidence. The US would never interfere like this in a war, just like Russia would never interfere in US elections.

  9. 10 minutes ago, Ultradave said:

    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

    I’ll fess up…the ancient alien part was probably me. I was referring to the anti drone tech reportedly carried on the ship that was being tracked by strange object's-something that is quite common and NOTAMs have been posted about.

    and said if anti drone tech is light enough for a human to carry then it’s easy to mount anti drone tech on a tank…

  10. 1 hour ago, Armorgunner said:

    To get a perspective! 

    Yes the Javelin is 70-80% of the time, a more competent missile than the NLAW. It has longer range, it has a dive attack to prevent any APS systems (Which Russia does´nt use any way). And in the open spaces of Irak, Javelin is the king!

    But the cost of the Javelin? Just for the CLU, you get 7 pieces of NLAW! Then you want a missile to fire? Right? And thats another 6-7 NLAWS. So just to fire one Javelin, for the same price. You could fire 13-14 NLAWS! And according to the Ukrainians, the NLAW is very effective (not going down to numbers). And then its about 7 NLAWS fired, per Javelin in Dollars! And the other advantage of the NLAW is! You just need the target to be in sight for 2-3 seconds to fire. No 20-30 sec warming up the sight. 

     

    But in the plains in southern Ukraine, I think the Javelin is needed in big supplies. Thats Javelin territory. The wooded parts of Ukraine, in the Kiev region, was NLAW territory.

     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGM-148_Javelin

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_generation_Light_Anti-tank_Weapon

    Got to think the Russians have learned from their mistakes and this time around they will plan and do better recon before committing their main attack.

    I think we will see a pre assault artillery barrage the likes of which has not been seen since WW2.

    I also wonder if the Russians will use extensive smoke barrages to cover the battlefield. Even if Javelin’s and NLAWs have optics that can penetrate smoke it’s still a hindrance. If Russia has analyzed the Javelin’s optics it’s possible they could add substances to smoke to obscure or degrade the optics.

    Im going to bet that the artillery and shells provided by the US include FASCAMs and other artillery shells designed to disable, destroy or impede tanks and IFVs.

    In the past few weeks Javelin, NLAW and other weapons became household names. 
     

    Don’t be surprised if artillery smart weapons become household names soon. We have some little known stuff designed for use against massed armored formations that aren’t well publicized and the Ukrainians themselves believe we will soon see a tank battle not seen since WW2.

  11. 30 minutes ago, Seedorf81 said:

    On the topic of ATGM production:

    I wonder if the average Ukranian AT-soldier knows how costly and difficult it is to produce just one Javelin or Nlaw.

    It would be understandable that if they received some Javelins for instance, and see an abandoned Russian tank, Bmp, BTR or even simple fueltruck, that they would like to test out the capability of such a modern toy. And shoot at it. (Boys will always be boys..)

    Could it be that a lot of rounds have been spent on "not so worthy"-targets? Hopefully someone tells 'm there's not an unlimited amount available..

    Most of the new soldiers are basically kids with a few days of training so fire discipline is probably lax.

    Social media is probably another factor- a tic tok video is worth a lifetime of memories so getting a good video with an AT weapon is gold to many of these internet savvy soldiers.

  12. 27 minutes ago, dan/california said:

     

    The missiles are killing the army they were built to kill, hard to ask for more. This war is lesson 8037 that you need five times as ammo as the most pessimistic planner thinks, maybe ten times. They are either going to have to expand the production lines or move up and expand production of the missile that is supposed to replace the Javelin. Said replacement is actually much further along than I thought, I need to find that article again and post it here. Seems expensive, until you look at the bill for being occupied by orcs.

    That’s been known for some time. It’s easy to say buy and store more, but aside from the expensive of acquisition of ammo, storage is a major consideration. Not only is space a major consideration, but also keeping environmental factors under control is another.

    Militaries have a budget and a lot of items to budget for. 

  13. 18 minutes ago, dan/california said:

    And because of that ratio they are winning the war. With enough missile density a frontal assault by massed armor just isn't a thing anymore. The same way rifled musket's and minie ball just made the calvary charge go away. The standard doctrine on how many ATGM infantry needs to be completely revised. It looks expensive, until you look at what losing costs

    We don’t know that yet. As mentioned other systems are killing tanks and many vehicles were simply abandoned. We also don’t know if Ukrainians are just firing off AT weapons at abandoned vehicles just to do so. Some videos seem to suggest that 

    No-standard doctrine on how many ATGMs isn’t going to be changed on a whim. Infantry is already carrying enough weight without adding more stuff to carry. These AT systems are not light and they are also bulky.
     

    Videos showing a preponderance of AT weapons with Ukrainian soldiers also shows they are not as weighted down as standard US soldiers-many don’t have body armor.

    Its possibly also wasteful and not necessary to start adding more ATGMs to NATO troops if other systems are capable of killing tanks.

  14. US officials are meeting with defense industry leaders to discuss long range plans to produce more weapons. 
     

    Supply chain issues and lack of skilled labor will also be discussed. 
     

    Zelinsky asked for 2000 Javelin’s a week and based on estimates of inventory and production times it looks like 2000 a month isn’t going to happen.

    I’ve seen a few videos where about every other soldier had an AT weapon and I’ve heard estimates of the AT weapon to soldier ratio that sounded crazy. 
     

  15. 10 minutes ago, dan/california said:

    Which I why I think a U.S. heavy brigade or two, and every missile and fighter bomber in NATO should adjust the Russians definition of costly.

    This approach sends a message to any potential despot that the way to avert NATO/US direct intervention is to possess a nuke.

    The days of the post Soviet collapse where the West could go in and use its conventional military might to shape events is gone.

    We’re now back in the days Putin is more familiar with. The Cold War days where proxy wars were tightly managed so as to not lead to nuclear annihilation, only this time around the nuclear club has grown.

    Win or lose Putin has just re-arranged the game.

     

  16. If Russia didn’t have nukes NATO led by the US would do a 1991 Sadam job on Putin.

    If China didn’t have nukes an Xi got out of line the West would just remind Xi what we did to Sadam and Putin.

    This is why China is ramping up its nuke arsenal and why the West has been trying so hard to stop Iran.

    Back in the day the nuclear club was just limited to 3 players. Now its 9 with more on the way. 

  17. 2 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

    Here is an educated Russian I won't have a guess of the level of education of the armed forces.

     

    We're in a new world. Putin won't stop till he wins or get offed.

    Even if he eventually loses there is going to be serious damage to the global economic system.

    On a personal level you better be prepared for higher gas prices, higher food prices, recession, potential loss of job, stock market volatility to name just a few things that are probably going south. This couldn't have happened at a worse time. 

    Unless this war stops soon-and I don't see that happening the damage economically and the suffering like starvation and chaos in the less developed world is going to be great, perhaps catastrophic. Even if Ukraine wins, its not going to be quick so the economic damage is something we probably can't avoid.

    The absolute worst case...we all know what that is.

    Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan where 1% were affected while the other 99% went about their lives unaffected, this war is going to hurt everyone one way or another.

×
×
  • Create New...