.jpg.526cd77784702913dcd2f6a68cb3cbd4.jpg)
Codename Duchess
-
Posts
320 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Codename Duchess
-
-
1 hour ago, LukeFF said:
Oh, here we go again. Duchess, where are you?
Don't worry, I saw that. I figured I'd let it fizzle unless it blew up again. I am prepared to make more bingo cards.
1 hour ago, VladimirTarasov said:2. Perhaps tactically bombed would end a disaster if NATO had AA asystems that can hit planes that launch KH-55 missiles 2,500 KM away? (TU-22s TU-95s TU-160 can drop these in a bunch of numbers) Georgian military bases would be flattened in a day if they are looking for full scale war.
Thing is you don't have a lot of those missiles or bombers to spare so using them on Georgia seems like a waste (although a safe one). Plus cruise missiles can be shot down easily enough, especially if you know they're coming (it's hard to hide bomber sorties in the age of the internet).
-
Video of the Victory Day Parade is up for those who want to gawk at the Russian toys. Includes Armata and Bumerang.
-
Those are high school students, not servicemembers. They have no obligation to join the military. Most won't, and even fewer will become officers. So don't let that represent any view you have of the US Military or my beloved Navy.
-
I don't think any game will ever knock WiC off of its current place as my favorite game. I would do anything, ANYTHING, for a sequel.
Cpt. Bannon man, the feels.
-
1 hour ago, kinophile said:
Does the army have a simulator in the vein of CM? IE Company ->Battalion scale?
I imagine there would be use in it, especially for officers.
In my experience with mid-level officers and government funded computer programs this would be too clumsy, inefficient, overpriced, and never used.
Plus by the time you get there you should have an understanding of what you're doing.
-
I can confirm that the real life (for US anyway) practice of an adjustment is just as easy as a missed pass. Hell, it's the same radio call.
-
1 hour ago, VladimirTarasov said:
How possible is it for LWS to be installed on the Bradleys and M1s at a short notice like the scenario for the game... I mean its very annoying enough that tanks lase at close range, And somehow American vehicles can react in short notices deploying smoke very fast and backing off, When all the gunner has to do is press the trigger to fire. I wish there could be made a choice to take off the LWS on the Bradleys and M1s, Because if my knowledge is right there aren't any plans to install those systems on them.
There weren't any plans to install Trophy either a month ago and yet here we are.
-
10 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:
Murder Apes, Is that a military term? : )
This is the first thing that came to mind:
-
-
19 hours ago, Abdolmartin said:
I kinda agree with Steve, this data may have been "a little bit" too much, but not "that" much.
Talking about OPSEC breaches, I remember reading on Wiki that US soldiers had posted geo-tagged pictures of their bases on social media and Taliban had used those coordinates to launch mortar attacks... I literally facepalmed after reading that. That was practically a breach of "common sense", not OPSEC.
We've taken advantage of this too, on a more successful scale. There are a number of ISIS-Command-Center shaped craters these days because Johnny Jihad posted some cool selfies to twitter with geotagging.
-
This topic has been literally beaten to death.
Don't make me get the bingo square out.
-
Did they ever figure out what kind of TOW was used? Pretty sure we discussed it. It just seems like the media doesn't acknowledge that the tank is probably much newer than that specific vehicle.
I also chuckled at the end where the author suggested that Syria would be more happy over the survival of the crew than the vehicle. Given everything else, I doubt that.
-
Left column, second from bottom is a Mistral MANPADS.
-
"Fire Mission, gaggle f*ck in the open. Fire for effect, over."
-
I'll notify Lucas Willens as well.
Hmm then I'll have to add Cruise Missile strikes on Los Angeles.
-
Double Post, I did a thing
IT BEGINS AGAIN.
Let me know if I forgot anything**
**I deliberately forgot Russian PGMs, because they seem perfectly okay with forgetting to bring them on deployments. -
To put it simply Ivanov, the kind of situations where one assumes US trouble at air superiority due to contended skies becomes an order of magnitude more complicated for the RuAF. You can't conduct fixed wing strikes on ground units without air control, and there's no scenario where the Russians can do anything but a very temporary bubble. Yes SHORAD is lacking but it's not the problem you think it is. The disparity in numbers and quality of aircraft is staggering (the Russians have some pretty cool kit, but it isn't widespread enough to warrant real fear), and SAMs aren't the end of the world that propaganda makes them sound like (on both sides).
And no, air forces can't provide continuous coverage against heavy surge operations, but continuous presence is very, very doable and gets easier for the US and harder for Russia as the war goes on. Plus in order to penetrate aor space defended by aircraft you need a pretty hefty strike. Even then, all I need to do is launch my missiles at long range at the strikers and get them to dump ordnance and then we both run home. The difference is I've done my job and he hasn't.
-
The debate on air defense has been thoroughly beaten to death here, but if we're going down that road again I will go put on a fresh pot of coffee.
-
Lucky for that T-90 crew, assuming the other 2 are okay. Have there been many/any reported casualties amongst Russian ground forces? I haven't been tracking that closely.
-
Panzer is running over a car with a tank as fun as I imagine?
-
From all the recent teasing I'm assuming your glorious advance has been turned into glass.
-
That was a hell of a pop
-
The rate of collisions has supposedly increased in recent years despite what you'd assume. The reason being more water traffic and people are more willing to try risky maneuvers/rely on radar instead of good old fashioned seamenship. During one of my summer cruises in college I heard that our sister ship had to make an emergency maneuver around a surfacing SSBN that had missed it's escorts. Oops.
-
Sburke your joke about the Ford goes double for the Gabrielle Giffords. I'm sorry she got shot and proud she survived, but she had no role in Navy affairs and represented a land locked state. In exchange she was given a ship normally named after cities.
Lucas your idea has merit in certain scenarios (either WW3 or 1989, or both). There happy? Agreement.
Unfortunately this is just the Ukraine in 2017. Yet again you're going full Red Storm Rising (or whatever WW3 novel you want to cite) which Ukraine 2017 isnt. If the Northern Fleet doesn't sail, NATO has no reason to destroy it. Like the amount of resources needed to attack Murmansk or a Bastion in force are ludicrous (look again to Archer Light, I believe they employed at least 3 carrier groups, 50 surface combatants and 30+ submarines in their attempt at the end of the book). It's not worth it to NATO to attack if the fighting is in Ukraine. It's not worth it to Russia to lose an irreplaceable fleet that won't make a difference for a fight 2000 miles away. I urge you yet again to look at my actual analysis compounded from multiple sources on the ability of the Russian Fleets to sortie. It's just not possible for them to have any effect in 2017 away from their own shores.
Commence with the name calling please.
Nato spearhead force ‘too vulnerable’ to be deployed in war with Russia
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
Thing is the most realistic scenarios for Russia intervening (protecting ethnic Russians or some variation thereof) would require some sort of long(er) term occupation. Smashing the Baltic Military and leaving will just have a bunch of pissed off citizens looking to avenge their brothers/fathers/neighbors etc against those very same ethnic Russians.