Tenses
-
Posts
71 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Tenses
-
-
12 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:
I remember reading heated discussions online about whether or not artillery and mortar shells made audible noise before impact.
Some argued that artillery shells are so fast that they arrive before the sound, while others said mortars fall soundlessly. But now we have seen many videos where it's clearly noticeable that there is a whistling sound just before impact.
The time before impact is very short, but I think if you would have just enough time to go prone if you were advancing carefully and mentally prepared you could get hit by artillery.
The mortar sound can be heard for a short period, but it is silent just before impact. It just gains speed during the fall.
-
Seems like more and more official statements suggest that NATO will personally kill everything russian in Ukraine, if nuke will be used. Hope they won't have to.
-
12 minutes ago, Zeleban said:
By the way, Russian propagandists claimed that this bridge was able to withstand a nuclear strike.
Yeah, just like their T-14 Armata
-
2 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:
Hrim-2 has a 500 kilo warhead. Is that really enough to produce a blast that size?
This. I am no expert but just look at the size of the blast compared to the truck, which was engulfed. It is monstrous. I am for a truck bomb but if Steve says this is 500kg then I don't want to see how bigger warheads work...
-
5 minutes ago, MikeyD said:
There's some irony in "LIBERAL SITE, ENTER AT OWN RISK" when its the con sites that are pushing the Kremlin propaganda.
I think we are long past the moment, when Soviet U...Russian Federation used leftist movements as it's hybrid weapon. Nationalists are now top of the top in UIs. But Russia is of course just opportunistic so the more UIs it finds in some group the better it will use them.
-
What I think will be increasingly important is how Ukraine will cope with more and more of alcoholics at the borders with Russia. Russians might want to create pressure on the borders to displace UKR units necessary to push into occupied territories.
-
On 9/26/2022 at 5:09 PM, Tenses said:
Well I certainly haven't taken much activity in the forums but I follow this topic from the start and consider it the best info out there thanks to it's "background diversity" and outstanding military knowledge of your's guys.
Nevertheless I wanted to throw my two cents into more heated recent discussion. What I consider will happen if Russia is going to go nuclear depends on it's exact usage and this is confirmed by a couple of Western decision makers out there, that exact response "depends". I would bet on three scenarios in this regard:
1) Russia uses tactical warhead on some military gathering to stop offensive or get upper hand elsewhere. West(mainly US to be honest) responds with cruise missile/air force action on Ukriane territory, effectively deleting any stronger Russian presence there. This would be in line of previous actions, which were meant to even out odds or place Ukraine at slight adventage in comparison to Russia.
2) Russia uses strategic warhead on some big city(not really an option IMHO). Response is the same as before but on the entire Russian territory. Main targets are all nuclear capable military vehicles/structures. This might look like escalation but really, if you see a crazy guy killig a child just before your own eyes you don't think like "hey it's not my child, I don't even know it's parents", but instead you just beat the s**t out of him no matter what. This is what people do with crazy elements to keep the rest of society reasonably healthy.
3) Russia attacks nuclear any NATO member. Response to this is a mix of 2) with addition of own nuclear wherever necessary.
I understand that even considering this kind of events is very disturbing but we must admit that we were never that close to this situation. Not even Cuban crisis was that close. Preventing all of this is very easy - we need to be crystal clear in commitment to support Ukraine with whatever force is necessary. All the power Russia has is from "fear terror" and as long as it has any chance that it can do s**t without serious repercussions, it will not stop.
Russia understands strenght. Period.
3 minutes ago, JonS said:So, to be clear, you are advocating emptying all the silos and all the boomers into Russia?
Jeepers, this is "we had to burn the village to save it" taken to a whole new level.
I see it this way. At least point 1) seems to be confirmed by Petraeus, not that he has anything to say in this matter anymore.
-
The rest of Kharkiv region should be liberated till the end of the week.
-
If there is anyone with any degree of sanity in Russia left, then only warhead Putler will see is going to start 20cm from his forehead and will travel at supersonic speed through his brain.
Otherwise there is nothing what we can do apart from responding with full force to any nuclear escalation. There should be no discussion such as stepping back as this would mean the end of the World for 100%. If we fight back the chances are still high for this but there is some hope for happy ending.
-
This is actually quite common pyramid in Europe. Look at Italy, I think this is the "worst" one(in Europe). I guess that their unemployment problem will end too quickly for their liking.
-
Russians are definitly capable of sabotaging the pipes, they are the ones who monitor them and could have a reason to do this. So as have been said, this is possible that someone else did it, but not very likely.
Possible reason is that some more sane fraction at Kremlin could want to push into normalization with the Europe/Germany. Well, they can certainly do this now...
-
1 minute ago, sburke said:
uuuuhh c'mon dude. Italy elections, Le Pen in France? Ring a bell?
This. It is a problem for the whole Europe and will blow it up if not stopped. And stopping it means giving a hand to your neighbor even if he acts strange and not in line with others. This breaks the chain reaction of distrust and builds mutual understanding.
-
6 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:
It's possible. Another possibility is that Germany and other West-European countries fear a new 'Warsaw Pact' after the war, in which countries like Poland, Hungary and Ukraine will start to go their own way and tear NATO and the EU apart. That is also my fear. A strong and independent Eastern Europe would also be in the American interest, as a buffer against Russia and as an alternative for NATO.
Seriously as long as Western Europe will see Easterners as threat and not as equal partners, history will repeat itself.
-
Speaking of Iranian drones, is there any quick and easy to integrate into AFU fix to this new threat? It seems like the biggest single technology aquired by Russia since the start of the war and provides quite dangerous capabilities.
-
9 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:
Also, a new Russia will not be able to count on oil and gas revenues much longer for building up another army. I don't see Europe returning to the "wandel durch handel" policy anytime soon, and demand for fossil energy is decreasing daily in general.
This is one of the reasons Putler actually started this war. Europe soon would cease to be good client for oil and gas, while in the east he has clients, which were not there 20, 30 years ago. Europe with fossil fuel demand was a stupid and good paying client, who gladly "sold the rope, for him to be hanged". In 15 years(if it survives in more or less current shape) it will be only another useless high-tech and high-standard of living collection of states, which is dangerous as some Russians might like this kind of life more than potatoes and vodka.
-
Well I certainly haven't taken much activity in the forums but I follow this topic from the start and consider it the best info out there thanks to it's "background diversity" and outstanding military knowledge of your's guys.
Nevertheless I wanted to throw my two cents into more heated recent discussion. What I consider will happen if Russia is going to go nuclear depends on it's exact usage and this is confirmed by a couple of Western decision makers out there, that exact response "depends". I would bet on three scenarios in this regard:
1) Russia uses tactical warhead on some military gathering to stop offensive or get upper hand elsewhere. West(mainly US to be honest) responds with cruise missile/air force action on Ukriane territory, effectively deleting any stronger Russian presence there. This would be in line of previous actions, which were meant to even out odds or place Ukraine at slight adventage in comparison to Russia.
2) Russia uses strategic warhead on some big city(not really an option IMHO). Response is the same as before but on the entire Russian territory. Main targets are all nuclear capable military vehicles/structures. This might look like escalation but really, if you see a crazy guy killig a child just before your own eyes you don't think like "hey it's not my child, I don't even know it's parents", but instead you just beat the s**t out of him no matter what. This is what people do with crazy elements to keep the rest of society reasonably healthy.
3) Russia attacks nuclear any NATO member. Response to this is a mix of 2) with addition of own nuclear wherever necessary.
I understand that even considering this kind of events is very disturbing but we must admit that we were never that close to this situation. Not even Cuban crisis was that close. Preventing all of this is very easy - we need to be crystal clear in commitment to support Ukraine with whatever force is necessary. All the power Russia has is from "fear terror" and as long as it has any chance that it can do s**t without serious repercussions, it will not stop.
Russia understands strenght. Period.
-
36 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:
I'm not sure I understand your overall point, but what I can say is that the reality of the battlefield is what got rid of the faulty doctrine of the tank destroyer. As I stated earlier, the tank destroyers were only designed to go against enemy tanks. One of the many consequences of this is that when they were used in an infantry support role, they didn't carry much HE. Try it in CM, use M10s instead of Shermans and you'll see the issue.
What I wanted to say is agree with your statement but from the other point of view. The M10 were designed to engage tanks and only them. The shermans(at the beginning of the war) were designed to engage infantry and only that. What reality showed is that you can not choose your enemy and if you are not prepared it will cost you dearly.
I consider moderate upgrade in armement a suitable solution to prevent situation where some unit can't even put up a fight. Imagine strykers catched in the open by enemy mechanized troops - this is what this upgrade is meant for. And it is absolutely possible in a conflict where you can't relay on full dominance in some area before rolling in towards objective.
-
1 hour ago, IICptMillerII said:
Clearly you know nothing of US tank destroyer doctrine in WWII, or even the tank destroyers themselves, for this is exactly what happened. Commanders saw a vehicle with a gun that looked a lot like a tank, sitting behind the lines doing nothing, and decided to use them in roles they were never designed for. There is a reason no modern military has used tank destroyers since 1945.
I consider this as a most apprioprate way explaining, why additional weaponry is never a bad idea.
Stating that some units are not going to do some missions is living in a reality where you can choose your enemy, time of engagement and if you are before or after the lunch. Shermans in WWII were to fight enemy infantry, so they did not need high velocity cannons yes? French aristocracy during 100 years war should perfmorm mounted charge on the enemy frontally no matter what, because this is what they always did?
30 mm cannons can be used in a variety of ways and they definitly improve performance of stryker brigades during execution of "normal" missions. And this could be between life and death, if they stump upon something like BMP-3s, which outguns them dramatically. Adding to this attached, integrated javelin, would make it even more elastic. Argument that better weaponry will make stryker commanders feel that they can destroy tanks effectively is very rude comment on these commanders intellect or training.
What is great about adding more weapons is that it is very cost effective in comparison to adding more armour. This is why sword is eventually overcoming the shield in the long run.
-
Armour of Abrams tank is of course much better. Apart from just below the turret it is in fact very hard nut to crack for any adversary, which is not a case for lighter russian tanks. The thing is that even, if Abrams better optics and thermals put it at advantage over T90 in terms of spotting, it does seem to be too much of it. I don't count as strange driving out of cover, spotting enemy tanks and placing a shot in 4 seconds. What I consider strange is that tank put frontally 750 m away won't notice attacker after it drives out of cover, destroys it's wingmate, reloads and kills it too. Even with medicore optics this would be highly probable to return fire in this time.
Regards
-
On 16.03.2017 at 6:26 AM, John Kettler said:
Stefano Z,
Welcome aboard!
Am sure you'll shortly find someone to oblige you. Am afraid it won't be me, for my dance card is full, and I've been unable to dance for quite some time, so to speak. Don't know whether or not you have a particular interest in a side, but the maven of the Russians is Sublime. He really knows his stuff and is very good at conveying the information. The overall capability spectrum in the game in terms of weaponry and response time goes like this: Americans, Russians and Ukrainians. There is a member who is kind of Sublime's analog and plays only Ukrainians. The Americans are at the top of the pile, but the gear is enormously expensive, and numbers tell. The Americans have the best sensors, which frequently result in first Spot, first Shot and first Kill. Their engagement cycle time is dazzling. I've seen a Veteran Abrams M1A2 SEPV3 with no Spot roll straight out of cover in plain sight at ~700 meter range smack in front of two T-90AM, also with Veteran crews and buttoned, which is the usual Russian combat practice. The Abrams went from no spot to Target Destroyed in four (4) seconds flat. Thinking this was ridiculous, I posed the situation to our own Abrams guys, who assured me this was eminently doable. That T-90AM died without ever firing. the one next to it was hit shortly thereafter, survived it, but then died on the second shot. It, too, never got off a shot. Should also tell you the BMP-2Ms with Kornet can and will use them now with deadly effect against the Abrams, rather than attract attention with the prior mostly galling 30 mm auto cannon fire (leading to very quick destruction generally). If you want a fun game, play Red on Red with the T-90AM and the other good toys. It's a fabulous run and gun platform and will give you a whole different perspective on armored warfare than you'll get from the much slower Abrams.
Regards,
John Kettler
John Kettler,
Is it really that M1 has that big adventage in terms of spotting? I haven't played CMBS, but in CMSF the spotting ability of Abrams is only marginally better than T90. It looks more realistic as for me and engagement between the two is not that one sided at all.
Regards
How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
A little bit stupid question but why are Shahed actually called drones? They function like just another cruise missile as far as I know, based on GPS and inertial guidance.