Saberwander
-
Posts
19 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Saberwander
-
-
1 hour ago, Huba said:
On the other hand, Zelensky mentioned a few days ago that re-taking DNR and LNR would cost 40 000 lives (something along those lines anyway), and it is not it the plans at the moment. Might it be that the eventual fall of Mariupol will be the end of the war, with Russia retreating to pre-February lines and Ukraine accepting that as preferable to continuing the war? Lives would be saved (to a degree) but it seems like a rotten compromise.
1 hour ago, Huba said:Did they? As I remember, the matter of DNR, LNR and Crimea was to be discussed separately during Istanbul talks, and they didn't ever get to it. I might be wrong though.
I don't think Ukraine would accept such a peace. It makes no sense for them. They have the western attention and help, they are doing well and Russia is under massive sanctions that will only make things worse for Putin at home. Accepting some kind of rotten peace would make their situation worse. The west would forget about them, with time sanctions would ease and Russia would be more ready next time around.
I think the offer Ukraine made was not one that Russia could accept. It required full pullout of all Russian troops from Ukraine (including DNR/LNR) and then in time a referendum whether they want to stay independent. That offer was obviously unacceptable to Russia and probably is to this day.
25 minutes ago, sross112 said:I said a couple weeks ago that I thought they would do whatever it takes to clear Mariupol, secure their land bridge and any gains in the L/DPR and then shoot for a ceasefire. Their problem right now is they don't have anything to bargain with. How do they get a bargaining chip that Zelensky will take seriously and the west will pressure for a cease fire? They need hostages. Where is a big bunch of hostages that they could take? Kharkov.
Thoughts?
This is a good idea. I can throw in another city they could offer, Kherson. The city hasn't been destroyed, it's on the "opposite" side of a major river so giving it up in fact makes their "future" border easier to defend.
However as always, I don't think Ukraine would accept this type of a deal. At least how it looks from my vantage point. It's always possible that Ukrainian military is extremely depleted and that they have to accept these kind of terms.
-
4 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:
Russian cheerleaders elsewhere claim the more advanced Slovak S300 system that just arrived has been hit at Dnepro airport. Any harder info on this?
They claimed to have destroyed it a few days ago. I guess this is a new claim? Quite likely it's just propaganda. Smart thing to do for Ukraine is to keep the system hidden away as the pure existence of a S-300 system makes Russian air operations riskier and less likely. Shooting down couple of planes but losing S-300 is not worth it.
1 hour ago, FancyCat said:Also, what the hell is Russia thinking? End the bridges over the Dnipro. The idea that Russia has been holding back that many pro-russian analysts have suggested falls completely flat when Russia can't disrupt the transit west to east. As far as I can tell, there is a completely unbroken road network from Lviv to Dnipro. Russia has bridge layers, Ukraine? Does not?
That would be my first move but there are always the dams. Destroying dams is probably not on the table. I would still go for all the other bridges and especially other railways infrastructure further west.
Btw Russia seems to be backpedaling on demands. Their initial demands were maximalist, denazification and demilitarization with annexation of eastern Ukraine, then they moved to "we just want to liberate DNR and LNR". The latest claim is that they only want to destroy nationalist battalions and that they are close to the end of the operation. To me it sounds like they will claim victory after they conquer Mariupol and "destroy" Azov battalion there. Looks to be a weak position.
-
18 minutes ago, AlsatianFelix said:
I'm waiting for the satellite images of the Moskva, like the ships hit in Berdyansk couple of weeks ago. There will either be images of it being towed, or if there are no images, it sank too fast to be recorded.
“We know she suffered an explosion,” Pentagon spox John Kirby said of the Moskva on MSNBC. “It looks like — from the images that we have been able to look at — it looks like it was a pretty sizable explosion, too. We don’t know what caused that explosion.”
So apparently US has images. Hopefully we get to see them.
-
15 minutes ago, panzermartin said:
About the Moskva, I have started to have doubts the Ukrainians hit it with the only Neptune battery they have. They film almost every launch of nlaw or Stugna, why they didnt film this historic moment, (at least the launch , as the taget was miles away). I'm sorry you have trained us like pavlov's dogs with the social media bombardment
Maybe the boat had maintenance issues like you all imply about soviet machinery and a fire indeed detonated the heavy missile load.
Ukraine did not release videos of their raid into Belgorod with Mi-24.
There are many reasons why they wouldn't immediately release videos. It could be used to identify the location or the number of launchers (is it a prototype or a serial version, ...). Also it was done at night, maybe the video is not that interesting.
But I wouldn't be surprised to see the video released in a few weeks time. Especially if they have footage of Moskva on fire. -
22 minutes ago, db_zero said:
Africa is going to see major famine. The poor all around the world are going to get priced out.
The developed world will secure its food supplies first and can afford the higher prices.
Going to see major unrest all over and governments fall.
Arab Spring 2.0
I've read that a lot of these estimates are not taking into account that most of wheat is not exported, so the loss of Ukrainian or Russian exports is not that large in the grand scheme of things. Apparently India already produced more than will be lost by Ukraine being unable to supply food.
India also has multiple harvests per year and can cover the gap. -
19 minutes ago, womble said:
So the Moskva wasn't even operating in a task force set up. That's... daring. And explains why she needed assistance from civilian shipping.
It crossed my mind that the Turkish tanker might've been conducting replenishment operations with the cruiser, but on second thought, I'd suppose you need/want a "proper oiler" to crossdeck bunkerage at sea. Even if that was the reason the tanker was "on hand", it wouldn't have been conducting refuelling during a storm, but it might've been close, intending to start once the sea state permitted.
I think those reports of Turkish ship taking on survivors are rumours. Turkey officially said it did not happen. I feel we would have received more information about it if it was true.
I don't think they need to refuel at sea when in a small sea like Black Sea.
-
3 hours ago, Taranis said:
I think the doctrinal development of the use of tactical nuclear weapons to break through the front was mostly a Cold War philosophy. This made it possible to contaminate only a small area but to create a breakthrough and launch the immense combat mass of the WARPACT into the breach (the vehicles being NBC protected to pass through without stopping) and drive it to the Atlantic. But I think the limitation of that philosophy at the time was not taking into account NATO's strategic nuclear response to such a breakthrough. I think Ukraine is far too small for such a doctrine that provided for a "continental" breakthrough
All good points however in this war we have seen Russians make breakthroughs, they drove from Belarus to western Kyiv and from Belgorod to eastern Kyiv. However it did them no good, they were unable to destroy troops that the "broke through" and in the end were forced to retreat. These types of breakthroughs need immense numbers and an enemy whos morale has been shattered. Ukrainians defending their country against war criminals will have high morale regardless (especially today when they see they can fight with Russia on equal terms).
This is why I do not think that tactical nuke would severely change the outcome of the battle in the east. Even if Russians resort to it, they can make a breakthrough and then due to vast distances and hostile population end up in a new Kyiv situation, being over extended with no prospects.
Tactical nuke could however be used to force a surrender. I really do not know what would Zelensky do if Russia went full nuts and started dropping nukes and threatening more. It would make Russia a pariah state but would Ukraine surrender?
-
1 minute ago, sross112 said:
I had to look up the Neptunes after seeing the article. They way out range the Harpoons so I was scratching my head as to why they hadn't used them already but what you say makes sense. Now that there is no fear of a credible amphibious landing (sunk and damaged transports, offloaded combat units, etc) the UA can spend some to hurt the naval assets. Also knowing that the Harpoons or whatever ASM system is coming to backfill lets them commit what they have knowing the other assets will replace the used capability.
Honestly that's just my layman theory. I have no knowledge how many launchers were available at the start of the war and whether they have been destroyed. I've seen mentions that they were not ready.
But, the fact that Russian navy never really got close to the shore at Odesa does point to Russian Navy at least being cautious about potential of them being operational.
-
2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
I'm sure this is a problem. However, eons ago (last week?) there was a video posted of a Stugna-P operating holding out for a better target because the missiles were so expensive. They spotted something juicier (Buk IIRC) and fired at it. Then some numbnuts started to break down the tripod after launch but before the missile reached the target. I don't speak Ukrainian, but I could understand the gunner was just a little bit upset by this. So they fired a second one and that did the trick.
Steve
I think it was a Buratino. Regardless, I think that most soldiers understand that the weapons they get are not infinite in numbers and that they'd rather have a NLAW on them when a Russian tank is driving toward them than to use it to film a video for TikTok. Stugna-P video also shows that Ukraine seems to have dedicated ATGM crews that have the best equipment and that those soldiers are quite professional in choosing their target.
Hopefully Moskva news is true. I'd love to see a big loss like that. If the strike happened it means that Ukraine is starting to feel confident about their defense of Odesa. My theory was that Ukraine held back the Neptunes (kept them hidden) in order to make amphibious landing incredibly risky. Could be the reason why Russia navy did not do their "thunder run to Kyiv" by landing in Odesa early in the war. Will be fascinating to hear more about this when info becomes available.
-
On 4/11/2022 at 4:10 PM, Der Zeitgeist said:
Very interesting article here, explaining the development of military culture in Russia and Ukraine, and how it influenced their battlefield performance in this war.
Thank you for the article. Hertling is quite interesting to read on Twitter as well.
8 hours ago, chuckdyke said:Here is Metro Kiev no good shelling it into rubble. You need the infrastructure; this city controls the Dnieper crossing. Ukraine needs it to send their reinforcements to the east. Russia will pay a heavy price for not taking it. The West need to provide aircover to the Donbass it is 1000 km.
This made me realize that Russia did not go after the infrastructure. I could understand not bombing the bridges when they expected to roll onto Maidan and hold a victory parade on Day 3 but why are they not destroying all the bridges over Dnieper? Why are Ukrainian railways mostly functional across Ukraine? They retreated from the north, there is no real need for them to keep those bridges functional (and other bridges over Dnieper to the south).
Surely it can't be that they are "saving" the infrastructure as they expect to occupy it? Is it just being unable to target it without losing many aircraft?
By focusing on destroying bridges across Dnieper and/or adjacent areas they could make Ukrainian supply that much harder. The fact that Russians seem unable or unwilling to do that shows another issue in their war plan. They are just not fighting this in a way that can achieve victory.
-
10 hours ago, Kinophile said:
ALL
We need a Devil's Advocate/ 10th Man Rule here.
What if RUS plays this smart?
What happens if they gain a commander who plays to what strengths they have left?
What if they avoid the zerg rush we fear/expect and go for something more methodical, with a 2 month time frame, e.g. mercilessly and uncaringly burning human and mechanized fodder to pin UKR units in place, driving them forward with full WW2 style "retreaters will be shot" enforcement, at massive cost but nonetheless pinning the UKR.
I'm not saying that's the approach that would win it for them, but could we discuss what RUS can do? We know that UKR could lose this battle (and still win the war) but how would they lose, militarily? What does a UKR defeat look like?
We all know Steve's points, and they're very valid/realistic, but - if the human cost is not a political issue, and there is sufficient battlefield security (OMON/SOBR/FSB etc), and you were RUS C/G, what would you do?
Ok. Let's see. Putin gives full authority to one guy.
1. Order a massive false flag attack against Russia proper - let's say a chemical plant in middle of a city with a poisonous gas. Seems simplest way to ensure massive civilian casualties. I am sure there are other options. This can be done either with painted Mi-24 into Ukrainian colors or with Tochkas moved to Kharkov area. Maybe even multiple attacks, every few days. Also some kind of false flag excursion into Russian territory is not a bad idea as well although harder to fake (maybe fake Azov "nazis" are unleashed on Russian villages at the border, leave a couple of survivors to be used for propaganda later).
2. Claim that you are forced to go to war against Ukraine.
3. Order a large scale mobilization - hundreds of thousands of soldiers (conscripts from previous years, reservists, ...). Bring out equipment (even third rate) that they can use.
4. Prepare a large scale offensive (maybe starting early summer) - I won't outline details of which directions to go exactly - doesn't really matter. What is important is that it would require total commitment from the Russian Air Force - meaning large losses of airplanes and helicopters. There needs to be continuous air support regardless of losses.
5. Hope it breaks Ukrainian defenses and resolve and causes a collapse.
This being said, I don't think it is doable. Even if they successfully execute 1-4, I don't think that they can defeat Ukraine because Ukrainian morale is so high after successfully defeating Russia in combat - something not many expected. Even if Russia breaks through the lines and takes some land, Ukraine will not surrender and then Russia is in a long term conflict while under sanctions and with Ukraine receiving foreign military and economic aid.
-
Regarding the war - honestly I think Russia lost the war after a week. When their initial plan failed they were in a losing situation given constraints they are fighting with. These constraints are obvious problem with issuing large scale mobilization and extremely low morale of the troops which do not understand why are they fighting.
I was expecting to see massive mobilization on Ukrainian side. Given the amount of weapons coming in I expected to see 500 000 or more soldiers in the field. I understand that in this age you need much more than just a grunt with a gun but if you outnumber the enemy 3:1 or 5:1 you can do a lot of damage, even as a infantry unit with anti tank weapons.
I am not sure if Ukraine is mobilizing as much as I expected.I expect a slow slugging match for a while and then steady gains for Ukraine until Putin declares victory and leaves for prewar borders of LDR/DNR. Question is would Ukraine accept that and would DNR/LNR collapse if they lose active Russian support.
BTW is there an update on Kherson front? -
2 hours ago, Der Zeitgeist said:
On the pro-Russian side, there's some stories going around that the satellite imagery showing the bodies in Bucha might be fake. This is mostly based on this "analysis" from "Southfront", claiming that none of Maxar's satellite had their orbits going over the region during the dates mentioned on the pictures: https://southfront.org/more-evidence-more-doubts-about-bucha-massacre/ .
I looked into that, and as expected, it's a poorly-made fake counting on people being too lazy to check the satellite tracks themselves, which can be easily done by using tools like this one: https://in-the-sky.org/satmap_worldmap.php
On each of the dates, March 21 & March 19, Maxar's satellites (specifically WorldView-1 & GeoEye-1) passed directly over Kyiv.
20 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:I think it's worth it. The Russian disinformation strategy is to produce as much bull**** as possible and just pump it into the internet. Each fake claim is not that hard to debunk, but the sheer volume creates confusion and overwhelms people. If people stop fact checking their lies, the Russians basically succeeded in their goal.
Each debunk takes time. People who the claim is aimed at will not be swayed by the debunk. Sheer amount of disinformation is enough to influence people. In the end, people start to think the truth is in the middle.
Best way to combat disinformation is to not publish it. Each big agency that carries Russian disinformation helps them achieve their goals. They need to have a filter, if it is debunked then it is not carried. -
7 hours ago, Larsen said:
Hm. And why is that?
Is CMBS an attempt at real battle simulation or a war game?
Different weapon systems cost is directly related to their effectiveness on the battlefield. The modern world, the modern economy is global. Taking the real life costs and comparing them is the only real way of determining the modern armor value. There is a reason why some equipment is more expensive then the other. It usually the cost of technology and the cost of putting it all together that creates a dollar value.
Keep in mind that there are two costs - one is what the government pays for the weapons produced by and inside the country and there is what the other countries pay to buy the weapons.
Problem with your theory is that real world countries have requirements and needs that are out of scope of this game. For example you will not be spending vast amounts of money on field hospitals, kitchens or engineering equipment in the game while in real life, that is a necessity.
Similar applies to various other assets. This is why price is not a good choice for "points" systems in a tactical level game. -
4 hours ago, Kinophile said:
I'm thinking more small quadcopter type, unarmed tactical ISR stuff, - and by slaved I mean locked to the tank's position & movement, providing above tree/building level optical & thermal feeds to the TC & Gunner for immediate situational awareness.
@Chibot Mk IX I'd forgotten that! they were great. But as Steve mentions, a weaponised rone requires support. The drones I'm thinking of would be organic to the tank itself, part & parcel of its situational awareness array.
Ideal would be having multiple drones that can rotate between being on "duty" and charging but I see a simple stopgap solution that would allow tanks to have much better situational awareness.
Why doesn't no one develop a tethered drone that uses same kind of propulsion (quadcopter or similar) but has a small cable for charging. I know it's not ideal but it would remove the need to have secure comms to the drone and the drone would be able to stay up indefinitely (as long as tank has electrical power).
It would mean that the drone can't really go very far from the tank, but imagine situational awareness a tank commander could get with a birds eye view from 100m. -
22 minutes ago, CHEqTRO said:
Looks like Ka-52. Incredible footage. A shame it is out of view for a little while.
Stugna makers should add "record to SD card" capability to their remote control Stugna units or go even fully crazy - post to social media (with a delayed release :D). -
20 minutes ago, akd said:
They are IR, so you wouldn’t see them in normal video like above.
I do think some IR emitters show up on camera. Not sure if it would be visible like that. Does look quite obvious to anyone observing.
What could it be if not a laser? Seems to move very steadily and gets "broken up" when going over bad terrain.8 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:First of all, thank you for taking the time to register on the Forum to make this post. All contributions are welcome!
YOU ARE CORRECT!!!! That is a laser. I'd bet tonight's dinner that is exactly what you saw. Very good eyes in your head
However, it might not be a designator. It could be a range finder. The two are different beasts. One is designed to guide a munition, the other is to determine location. Designators have to be more powerful than range finders. Here is a simple explanation about the differences:
https://pointerclicker.com/laser-pointer-vs-laser-designator/
I don't know if designators show up as red or use a different spectrum.
Steve
I have to be honest and admit someone on twitter pointed that out, thought it might offer some insight into what was used.
-
On 4/1/2022 at 5:53 PM, akd said:
Something appears to be methodically destroying all these Russian vehicles with high precision:
I'm a lurker following this very interesting and illuminating discussion. I just wanted to point out one thing about this video (you've had a discussion whether it was guided or not).
At about 33-34 second mark in this video you can see what appears to be a dot move across the ground - looks like a laser to me. I'm not sure how do the laser designators look from a drone but I'm sure there are people here who will be able to tell if that's a laser.
How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
For anyone interested, Aiden has a instagram account/twitter account Cossackgundi and he was pretty active poster. When the war started and Russians reached Mariupol he went "dark" and left his account to his friend who was relaying Aiden's messages and in general retweeting interesting stories.