Yet
-
Posts
172 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Yet
-
-
10 minutes ago, poesel said:
Just for the record: that is a fake (and a year old, btw)
Thanks LLF, we wouldnt want the yankees to think that this is really the map of Europe.
-
1 hour ago, DesertFox said:
Romania?
try to search 'US basis' on Google Maps around the Black Sea. I guess USA has it covered and a few boats around by themselves.
-
10 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
But that's just it... it appears that early in the war the usual Russian harassment activities were ratcheted back. Presumably this was ordered by Putin to avoid his numbnuts military from accidentally giving NATO a reason to widen the war. If not directly, then by enthusiastically providing something to Ukraine that Putin rather have the West continue hem and haw over. So this incident was (almost) totally out of character since early in the war.
The Russians say they had a threat coming in and they went up to investigate, causing the US drone pilot to do something dumb that resulted in the AQ-9 falling into the sea. Anybody believe that? I certainly don't.
The best thing to do is take a Russian statement and change all the wording to be the opposite. If you do that, the Russians knew it was an AQ-9, knew it wasn't headed towards Russian airspace, went to intercept it because it was an AQ-9, then engaged in in a way that caused it to crash.
These AQ-9 flights are routine. There is no reason to suggest this one specific flight was any different than any of the hundreds of others. Which suggests someone made a decision first then ordered the planes to go up close and personal.
Not only did the Russians likely know what this was even before the went up into the air, it would have been very easily confirmed almost instantly once getting into visual range. No need to get within collision distance. Which means the Russians most likely intended to bring the drone down.
The fuel dump was the first attempt at a plausible deniable take down of the drone, but it didn't work and so hitting the prop with a wing did the trick.
The amount of time and precision flying that is necessary to clip the prop instead of missing or catastrophic collision is immense. It is also unlikely that the Russian plane was flying so close that it couldn't have maneuvered out of the way if the AQ-9 suddenly changed its flight pattern (which, as I understand it, is not SOP for these situations).
Improvisational confrontations with the US are not something lower level or even senior level commanders would do on their own. That isn't the sort of thing Russians do, so that leaves either complete accident (facts say otherwise) or orders from Putin himself (generally, at least).
Steve
they could easily have blown the asset. wouldnt it be logical that RU gets a great deal from -say China, Iran or so - if RU takes down one of them in 1 piece to collect and do some reverse engineering?
-
1 hour ago, Rokko said:
I remember reading a post by this guy and was also surprised by how relatively accurate it was. One thing I noted was his extremely low estimate for the initial RU invasion force, I think he even put it below 100k, which is way less than any other estimate I've ever seen, even after it became apparent how many RU units went into Ukraine extremely under strength, partially without their conscripts, etc. I assume this is to retroactively manage expectations and explain away the lackluster performance of the initial invasion force. If I remember right, he also has the usual lalaland estimates of UKR and RU casualties, like basically all pro-RU numbnuts. I suppose this is a required feature though, or else their world view would implode.
An interesting picture I saw a few days back. These exceptionally clean looking and well-equipped allegedly belong to the 155th NIB. Since they don't quite look like they belong to a unit that has been reconstituted 7 times and mostly consists of re-assigned Pacific Fleet sailors, that has been bashing itself against Vuhledar for the past weeks, I'd say I would dare to question this claim. Although I find the idea rather funny that the Russians have troupe of guys looking like RU wet dream of Speznaz for the purpose of dispelling rumors of extraordinary losses and assure people everything "is going according to the plan".
Another possibility might be, that even utterly trashed units manage to maintain a core (like a recon company) of veterans that are deliberately kept out of the typical human-wave meat assaults and retain some measure of combat efficiency.
different helmets, different backpacks, different ammo-belts, different masks, different badge-wear, different rifles even it seems.
-
... UK must be full of awesome strong Rambo's that they can hunt, kill and eat squirrels. In the USA the squirrels are having the upper hand over humanity.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/11/squirrel-hospitalizes-anti-squirrel-chicago-alderman.html
-
noop, youre definately about the first... we are having squirrel-week.
.jpg.0467c1928719d1d71104dc688c7234a8.jpg)
-
https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/10/politics/russia-iran-ukraine-weapons/index.html
i guess this is the official end of a technological superpower.
... from first man in space to "we dont understand rockets".
-
4 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
Looks like you and LLF are both misunderstanding what I'm talking about. I'm talking explicitly about the defense industry's needs. That is "easy" by comparison to trying to retool the entire economy. And as I mentioned, and you did as well, there's a massive financial disincentive to try and ween the entire economy off of China, which means either governments mandate it happen or isn't going to happen proactively. So this is not a discussion about cutting China out of industrial production generally, just where it matters.
And personally, I am fine with half measures. Cutting out China by partnering with a friendly democracy is at least a better short term solution. Taiwan, though, is problematic as in the event of a war with China that source becomes very insecure quickly.
There's three types of chip based technology that is making a massive difference in this war:
1. chips used for communications equipment (everything from a hand radio to satellite coms)
2. chips used for delivery systems (drones in particular)
3. chips used for PGMs (HIMARs, Excalibur, HARM, Javelin, etc.)
If you took these three types of equipment away from Ukraine, this would be a partisan war on a grand scale.
Steve
all these things China can make with the current machines they have, the ones that ASML(Netherlands chip machine fabricator) can still sell to China, and the chips already on the market (iphones, washingmachines etc). With the ban on the new generation machines (which by the way arent even fully up to speed yet) they are banning China to control themselves the production of the next generation chips that have more power, and are smaller (for next generation products) - Im not an expert on what chips are needed for what product but i am thinking insect-drones, info-contactlenses, implants and other james bond/scifi stuff that we arent so far away from with current tech and medical possibilities.
Because China sees this coming they will find ways around, i assume they will take measures and:
- play the same game where they have the edge, (forbid us ...) The game we played with RU (sanctions) is impossible with China.
- try to themselves build up knowledge and build an industry (very hard and will take many many years and extreme spying),
- make sure they keep fabricating consumer goods which need the most high-end chips so they always have a big stack of them, no matter if they can print them themselves.
-
posing a question:
or did Putin stop the nuclear START inspections for another reason: he doesnt want the world to see the current state of the nukes.
there have been a lot of international inspections, so we can assume that till last year everything was in top condition, otherwise we would have heard it right?
however, over last year or could be possible that the nuclear warheads are still in good condition, but because the rockets had to be made free (prepared for Ukraine) that now there are some imperfections going on: like lack of platforms to deliver the nukes, uncarefull storage of the warheads or other things.
-
I wouldnt worry too much about Finland and Sweden.
1- no actual threat (Thanks to UA)
2- enough NATO security
3- if Turkey lets them in... who is then going to chair any peace negotiations that will need to take place sooner or later anyway... China? Usa? Finland? Israel? Luxembourg? Hungary? Kazachstan? Japan? .. at the moment every alternative sounds same hilarious.
-
1 hour ago, The_Capt said:
Right!? I mean if this is really going to turn into a global Decision Point war, even the most backward insularism is going to be hard pressed to sell the rolling up of the USA as a viable strategy. We very may well have lost interest in '24 if this was still "just Russia". Throw in a real fight with China and the sleeping giant may actually fully awaken.
I hope the sleeping giant can then manage to awaken the army of Dunharrow in Brussels.
-
4 hours ago, Sojourner said:
Sorry, didn't think that needed further explanation, danfrodo got it though. "Fallacious" may have been too strong, "faulty" might have been a better choice. No snark intended.
I suppose though that over time, and as quantities start racking up, the cost trade-off weapon for weapon may become a factor. But I don't think it should be a primary consideration. But yeah, it should reinforce the need to develop cheaper defenses.
yes we should develop cheaper defences... why?
Because trade off on the target makes no sense either.
when i see a rocket incoming. i first have to identify the rocket and analyse if it still can change trajectory. Then i have to calculate where it lands, on my powerplant? then assess if the damage will be higher than the cost of the AD. will it land on the unused farmland next to the powerplant? - then let it fly (and hope we didnt miscalculate). Can the enemy possible to change the missiles course in air? then what shoot it anyway because we dont know what the damage will be?
oh and if the rocket will block of houses? what if those houses were already abandoned? will you even repair the damage? or was that block going to be demolished anyway after the war for a new plan?
oh! I can go on.. what if a rocket is fired at a monument with low monetary-high emotional (or strategic) value?
what if the enemy fired a pingpongball at the powerplant. shoot it down because the powerplant was targeted?
see .. quite hard to make the trade-off on the target it hits.
-
19 hours ago, The_Capt said:
I think you are missing a whole lot of nuance of what actually happened on these missions. The military was not simply being “police” as there was an open insurgency/guerrilla war going on, which is well outside the scope of police forces. Police forces were not anywhere near prepared to deal with what was going on in these places, and military power alone could not do it either. These insurgencies were to the point that governments in country could not function and in the end defeated both us and those governments. We cannot and should not approach this with a “whelp the first three days went really well, watcha gonna do?”
Military power is “designed” to do whatever the political level asks it to do - we do not get to say “sorry we are not designed for this”, we redesign ourselves to the problem and win. This is an extension of what military power within the context of our nation states, is really there for - to implement policy, and guarantor implement of policy by others.
Moving the goal posts is an incredibly bad idea. I mean why learn from our mistakes and build better, when “we really won after all?”
i totally agree with the point to learn from our mistakes! i never said we shouldnt.
note that i wrote 'army' in one of the roles. I also didnt suggest those insurgies should be dealt with by police, i suggest that the right job should be done by the right service in the right uniforms. I also even agree that the army is supposed to do everything needed, and i command your guys mentality and flexibility to do everything needed.
however, the army isnt necessary best in everything. army can fight a war, build a bridge, run a school, keep the order and rule a country. However, when it is possible, bring in the engineers, the police, teachers and the politicians.
the fact that these insurgies kept coming is because not enough people gave the new government their blessing. which is imo a organizational, governmental (political) failure.
-
43 minutes ago, danfrodo said:
This could be a double edged sword. As the war hits home, folks might feel anger and want vengeance, support war more strongly. But they now also might, over time, start to realize they've been duped and are simply Putler's pawns because they have some very ugly, hard data. If the families of the dead start talking to each other, opinion could change over time -- and there's lots of families of dead soldiers now.
nah, this is reverse Psychology.
you dont want your beloved one to have died for some weird nonsense. you want your beloved to have died as a hero for a great cause. therefore, no matter your prior opinion or ratio, you will support the war more and sell it to your friends, families and neighbours to improve the feeling and pride for your beloved.
-
59 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
I have heard this inspirational "innovative verve" argument before and I am not entirely sold to be honest. At strategic and operational levels we did not adapt in Afghanistan or at least nowhere near enough. We became hammers looking for nails and never prioritized the non-kinetic over the kinetic. In Iraq we also failed to win a peace by setting in motion sectarian alienation. Place it still a mess. Now in some ways these wars were (are) unwinnable as the adaption we would need to make to win them are off our maps.
Tactical innovation does stand out but troops everywhere have been doing this for centuries. Largely due to Darwinian pressure on the battlefield - those who cannot improvise, die. I am not sure we can definitively say we are better or worse than other forces to be honest.
So the evidence that at the scope and scale of this conflict that we would really do any better going off-doctrine than the UA already has, is pretty limited. We are pretty dogmatic about how we fight, for example to suggest that we should start thinking about Detailed Command, and the utility of Mission Command could be limiting is outright heresy in western military circles. And although you won't be taken out and shot for speaking heresy in the west, you will still be sidelined and isolated. Military cultures are extremely conservative - look at our track record in the people space, we have always lagged the rest of society on social change (don't ask, don't tell, integration of women etc)
I think the only real advantage we may have is in learning because the west is built on liberal education. That does allow for a lot faster and more agile collective learning potential, but again we counter it with culture in a lot of ways.
In the end I am not sure what we would do if airpower was removed. I think we would likely initially try to do what we have always done with airpower and suffered setbacks. We then likely would have also adopted more cautious and deliberate strategies much in the same way the Ukrainians have. I like to think we would done better than the RA because they are extremely wasteful in chasing attrition, and have demonstrated an extreme aversion to actually learning. However, we may have also stuck too close to manoeuvre and decisive battle as opposed to the far more distributed defence we saw from the UA in Phase I, which could have gotten us into serious trouble given the battlefield realities we saw emerge.
I never assume advantage or overmatch until I am damn sure we actually have it. Understanding ones weaknesses is almost as important as understanding theirs, same goes for strengths.
well, i know im going to open Pandoras box here but hey.
i think the Iraqi war and Afghan war both were wildly successful. There was control after a few days.
War and militairy was never designed to make lasting peace. They are designed to win battles and open up a space where a new government with new rules can win (the good way or the bad way) the bless of the people. Building up the Trias politicas (government, juridical system, police) failed. This can have a lot of reasons, probably also a wrong strategy for this situation because we try to do it always nice for everyone.
Maybe partly it didnt help also (minor issue but imo worth mentioning) there was heavily relied on US (and international) army to do police-work. This means that the same guys in the same uniform are:
-gathering intel, make the chats, win trust
-being police to make arrests
- manage revolts
- shoot the crap out of a breakout
for these tasks we have local agents, mainstream police, riot police and army; All in different uniforms. This way if you see one making mistakes or fight, it doesnt interfere with your relations to the other types.
-
23 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:
It seems the Russians are preparing an amphibian landing.
At least the frogs will have many new ponds this spring.
On a more serious note, I think we can probably add this kind of rocket launcher to the list of weapons that will be seen as obsolete after this war.
considering that it is the only vehicle being stopped by styrofoam 'dwagon teef' i guess they wont serve a better purpose than targeting practice or mine-sweeping.
-
35 minutes ago, Sekai said:
Prigozhin appears furious, and Wagner's heyday appears to be coming to an end. He should stay away from high-rise buildings
So, why gazprom can have a mercenary army. maybe to replace wagner when time comes?
-
5 hours ago, danfrodo said:
I remember posting similar points nearly a year ago. Look at all the things Putin would not want and how many of them his failed coup-war has accomplished. Actually, if we just judge him on his accomplishments it's really impressive. The only problem is that these results were for the other side, but still he should get several gold stars for effort.
He's:
unified NATO
pushed Finland and Sweden into NATO
made every country on his border get very serious about defense
accelerated the move away from fossil fuels by a decade
Reduced the military threat of RU for a generation
Accelerated the 'stans' countries in becoming more independent
Sent a lot of really talented technical professionals to the west -- thx!
Introduced millions of noobs into the concept of what is and what is not a tank, which should actually be taught in schools but sadly is not
On political unity, anyone that can make me actually complement Mitch McConnell is a real miracle worker. (note I have put those complements in writing here on the forum multiple times)
So let's all take a moment to praise the genius of Putin, who has done things that most people thought were simply impossible.
Good list, can I add one?
he managed to bring EU decision making that used to take months - to days.
ps. I tried to get Tanks and AFVs as mandatory topics at our kindergarten, but somehow the parental committee didnt agree. Any ideas?
-
53 minutes ago, sburke said:
that seems more likely than Steves expectation for something big failing to happen. At the date to celebrate, they dont want to start an offensive with unknown outcome. at that date theu want a sure celebration, or nothing. Remember that may 9th was very silent on the UAwar.
-
20 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
I am thinking of getting a T-shirt that reads "I will work for Poutine".
Steve
Dont show up with that in UA. They might think it is French writing for Putin
-
Time to count down till we see Sachalin in the news.
Contested by RU, JP and and maybe even China too, though that was long ago.
-
13 hours ago, The_Capt said:
In reality if Plan A was to defeat through Dislocation - which all the parts you list are really components thereof; plan B was to fall back on Attrition. Not a terrible idea but...
~~~~~
Last point - strategy should never be relative. It cannot be a "good strategy from our point of view" as the sole metric of good or bad. Strategies must have a universal objective component, they have to take into account reality. If they fail to do that then they really are not a strategy at all, they are a wishlist.
good post again The_Capt!
in terms of strategies, plan A was in my eyes decapitation: Run to Kyiv shock and awe, bring in some spetsnaz and roll over the apparatus.
plan B to dislocate, and plan C attrition.
and yeah a strategy should never be 'relative' ofcourse, but it can only be as good as your assessment of: your own capabilities, your opponents capabilities, the situation and the reaction of 3th parties.
These assessments proved to be ehhh. p*sspoor
like making a checkers-strategy without knowing: only half of your stones can move; your opponent plays chess; the opponent is backed by friends that wont keep silent and keep putting stuff on the board.
so yes, there was a plan A, B (and C), but based on bad assessments. Not only the troops but also the strategies were build for another war and RU doesnt seem to be able to improve its assessments.
... which makes The_Capt being right again...
-
1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:
I am convinced that Plan A was outright military defeat of Ukraine and Plan B was a sort of Minsk 3 situation where the active fighting would be frozen with Russia's goals mostly, but not totally, secured. There would be fighting for many years, but at small enough scale that Russia could easily handle it.
A relatively quiet front would allow Russia to focus on "pacification" of the occupied lands. Putin likely counted on passivity and collaboration as happened in Donbas and Crimea, not an insurgency like Chechnya. And he would have been correct to do so. The partisan activities in occupied lands is fairly mild as most of the potential troublemakers evacuated.
Russia could have sustained such a situation for a very long time. Then, when the time was right, Russia would try for something else, perhaps the rest of Ukraine or perhaps Belarus. Whatever Putin planned on, it certainly was never going to be only about taking eastern Ukraine.
Steve
RU wouldnt have to invade over 4 axes if they didnt have a plan B.
Plan A: take Kyiv (and the country) in 3 days.
Putins worst case scenario: We wont make it to Kyiv
-plan B: expand to entire donbas and secure a landbridge to Crimea and Moldova.
-plan C : keep and defend the gained territories in the north these 3 days.
-plan D : retreat with scorched earth.
Capt would be proud on his scholars for so many initial backup plans
however: real worst case for RU:
- Dont make it to Kyiv + UA want to fight + Zelensky stands up + run out of supplies + get *** kicked by UA + EU acts decisive and fast for the first time in history, get sanctioned + UA receives an endless amount of financial, humanitairy and militairy aid.
... he just underestimated the 'worst case' a little bit
Plan B though actually partially succeeded.
Though C and plan D didnt go so well...
Going to plan E: secure the Donbas and land bridge with mobilisation and stop the will to fight/to aid with attricion, attacking energy supply + oil&gas stop supply to EU.
We are now wondering what plan F and G can be.
We heard:
- full war without reserves to take and defend Donbass (most probable plan F, if we see airforce, navy and endless streams of new mobiks its already going on) assuming UA can withstand it, what is plan G?
we heard...
- make the call that all facist are dead and RU succesfully finished the real goals of the special militairy operation (might be too far in by now to pull that off even for domestic consumption though).
- take Belarus as a pity price and call it a win (doesnt make sense though)
- (small tactical) nukes (or other womd).(only powerfull when you dont use em though, plus it is definately clearly escalating)
- change of leadership
anything else?
-
14 minutes ago, DesertFox said:
Fast driving or low flying? Which is it?
heh. i saw that once when i taking a hike and an apache came silently just over the hill and the hedges at about a 1-200m distance. Crapped my pants even though i know its a training.
and Kraze, .. we thing 1:3 is F***** awesome, dont worry
and i think the rates are inflating by the hour now (at least untill the next UA offensive).
.jpg.0467c1928719d1d71104dc688c7234a8.jpg)
How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted · Edited by Yet
The last part (the armoured graveyard) seems like old news from march 4th that probably you all know already. I missed out this period due to personal reasons.
i cant find an international source so quickly, but this is from Reuters:
Ukraine captures an RU officer that wrote down the losses on paper. (Vuhledar).
march 1st: 100 soldiers attacked, 16remain
march 3th: 116 soldiers, 23 remain:
march 4th: 103 soldiers, 15 remain.
march 5th: 115 soldiers, 3 remain.
the article also links to an older article about the biggest (armoured vehicles) battle in the war. (130 armoured vehicles burning in the Vuhledar fields).
History will have to tell us if Bakhmut or Vuhledar was the main place that turned the RU 2024 offensive.
https://www.ed.nl/buitenland/oekraine-neemt-russische-officier-gevangen-die-in-schriftje-harde-cijfers-van-uitgeschakelde-manschappen-opschrijft~a94a4960/