Jump to content

BamaATL

Full Members
  • Posts

    4541
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by BamaATL

  1. 12 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

     

    Interestingly enough, after the Soviet collapse there was high demand for all the old weaponry, which in turn lead at least in part to where we are now.  That was an economic bounce back for them.  After seeing the modern day performance, whatever is left once this is all said and done, who in their right mind is going to pay for it?  

    I have a strange hobby of watching videos on abandoned places and their backstories on youtube, I just think its interesting.  I used to watch a guy in Russia and he would go all these fallout shelters and military industry that was abandoned.  It was sort of amazing just how much there is and how nothing has been done with these facilities.  To someone's earlier point, these are looted and not much is left, but you had to know at one point those were at least somewhat viable production facility.  What was striking to me is that in 30 years, absolutely nothing has been done with them.  

    • Hook 'Em 2
  2. 10 minutes ago, Nivek said:

    Goddamn, even Shawn Watson could draw up a better plan.  

    If I am reading this correctly, which good lord, you will notice that they aren't remotely taking into account their field of fire having friendlies in them.  Matter of fact, it looks as though they actively trying to kill their own.  3 squads enter 1 survives (maybe)!  I need an advil after just looking at that.  

    • Hook 'Em 4
    • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
  3. 6 minutes ago, ABSR said:

    So NATO countries are not willing to make Ukraine a NATO country and sign something that immediately puts them and all of NATO at war with Russia?   Shocking!

    … and if it is something the current UK government will sign then based on repeated statements backed up by actions they are not trying to limit Ukraine in their fight against Russia.

    Seems like made up headlines and Russian media trying to stir the pot.

    I doubt Russia had anything to do with this getting out.  This was leaked to ISW to shame the French, UK, and Germans.  Consider the political situation in the UK, I am not surprised that they could be swayed by the Germans to go along.  Marcon's hangs on by a sliver in France, and Olaf is douche bag, more concerned with Germany's station than what is right (and of course his political life).  

    I'll be honest, I think a lot of the German resistance to this is fear of competition.  First the Poles are catching up, and a free Ukraine represents a big threat to industry.  That having been said, I really just don't like they fact that the Germans of all people seem to have roughly 1/3 the power in both the EU, and to a lesser extent Nato.  Now I realize that eventually we have to move on, but its sort of like we have forgotten why a lot of this exists in the first place.  I'm sure the German's are just shaking here their collective boots to hear this, but I don't plan on deliberately buying any German products for the foreseeable future as my own sort of personal protest.  

    • Hook 'Em 3
    • Like 1
  4. 2 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

    Jeez. My problem is that massive group of trucks has to be known to the Russians. 

    As someone who has no impact on anything and is merely following events from a monitor, my biggest concern is that they move forward too soon and waste men and material in a way that could have been more effective if they'd waited for the new armor shipments to arrive in a quantity that could make a difference. But shit. I know nothing. If the Ukrainian command sees an opportunity that needs seizing, I hope for great success. 

    Those are British mastiff MRAPs, more designed for patrols.  I suppose they make sense to patrol their side of the Dnieper River.  

    • Hook 'Em 1
  5. 8 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

    By whom? He's practically revered in Great Britain.

    https://www.statista.com/chart/12999/britains-greatest-military-foes/#:~:text=George Washington was named Britain's,defeat in British military history.

      Reveal hidden contents

    Britain's greatest military foes

    UK

    Feb 21, 2018

     

     
    The following infographic revisits an online poll conducted all the way back in 2012 but considering one hasn't been conducted since and how interesting the results were, it is still worth revisiting. The UK's National Army Museum polled 8,000 respondents to find out who the public considers Britain's greatest military foe. The main criterion of the survey was that each enemy commander must have led an army against British forces in battle, therefore ruling out political enemies such as Adolf Hitler.

    George Washington was named Britain's greatest military adversary, garnering 45 percent of the vote. He led American rebels to victory in the War of Independence, inflicting what some experts consider the greatest defeat in British military history. Irish leader Michael Collins commanded the Irish Republican Army in a devastating and ultimately successful guerrilla warfare campaign against the British during the Irish War of Independence. He came second, collecting 21 percent of the vote. Napolean is considered Britain's third-greatest foe while Rommel, The Desert Fox, came fourth and Atatürk fifth.

     

    Niall McCarthy
    Niall McCarthy
    Data Journalist
     

     

     
     
    Infographic: Britain's greatest military foes  | Statista

     

    Pretty impressive since Michael Collins lead a revolution, was murdered, resurrected and then piloted a craft to the moon.  

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Haha 6
    • Drool 1
  6. 30 minutes ago, The Dog said:


     

    No bueno, if true (no reason to suspect it isn't) Bakhmut would be nearly encircled with no way out without taking heavy fire.  At the same time, I have read, that the wagner situation was desperate in terms of munitions.  Leaving Bakhmut will be tough on UFA in a psychological way and russian trolls will act like they have just entered Paris.  Here's to hoping the UFA got its people out of there and that it's all a feint for a crushing counter offensive.  Perhaps by ceding territory they got the wagnerites to exceed what little their supply could actually get to them.  

    And yes, I realize that might all be too much to hope for, but fuck those guys, may they all drive stolen Kia's into mine fields.  

    • Hook 'Em 6
    • Like 1
  7. 16 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

    I continue to wonder if we have a strategy of a drip approach. If we just gave Ukraine all the toys, then Putin has cover with his populous that this war was always unfair and that might keep him in power. If we do a constant drip of toys to match his meat waves, then it increases the pain on the populace to force regime change. That has to be the end game in this conflict. Russia has to change and I think if Putin is obviously out matched, then he has to retreat, remessage and possibly retain power and that structure remains for the world to deal with. 

    I think we also have to factor a resupply lag time with equipment. All the supporting countries have to find out how to backfill (with mainly American weapon systems) to remain war ready if this fully escalates. There has to be some hedging on goods delivered to the front lines vs potential value of goods staying home in case they are needed for their own defenses. 

    In my opinion, the Ukrainians are employing a modern day Fabian strategy.  The best and simplest example of this is George Washington during the Revolutionary War.  Washington kept getting the British to chase him around and exhaust themselves doing so, in the hopes that eventually the French would arrive combined with the limited resources the British had in country.  Once the timing was right, it was time to strike.  Obviously, this proved to be correct (This is a gross oversimplification of it).  The Ukrainians are doing the same thing in a modern warfare landscape waiting for the international coalition of equipment and munitions to be in place.

    Interestingly, there are rumors that the Russians are now attempting to shift to a parallel strategy of their own.  The thought is that they are attempting to consolidate their gains, only defend (if true this clearly hasn't been fully implemented) and I suppose wait for Chinese weapons.  In the meantime, they hope to exhaust Ukrainian resources (I think this is a fools errand with what is coming).  However, and again I think that is speaks to how poorly the Russians are lead, the Chinese aren't coming, and whatever weapons they do send will be just enough to maintain the illusion that they are Russia's alley.  The truth is, Xi and China love having Russia convinced of this, because it allows them to continually exploit them for pennies on the dollar.  

    • Hook 'Em 1
  8. Just to add to that a bit as it applies to this situation.  At the beginning of all this, if I remember correctly it was only the DIA the predicted that the Ukrainians would offer fierce resistance to an invasion.  14 out 15 other intel agencies all predicted a quick fall Kyiv or worse.  So how did everyone get this so wrong?  In my opinion, its over reliance on analytics.  Sure, you can quantify how many tanks somehow has, the number of troops, artillery, etc.  What you can't quantify is the human abstract.  Analytics told our intel people that there was no chance for the Ukrainians, so don't send heavier weapons, etc.   What analytics can't figure is a quantity for poor Russian leadership, the Ukrainian will for freedom and their desire to fight for it.  

    Analytics has its place, and it is valuable, but over reliance on it is dangerous, short sighted, and ultimately wrong.  This is the conundrum for all strategic planners globally (and not just war), it's valuable insight, but to what level?

    • Hook 'Em 3
    • Like 1
  9. 6 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

    I largely agree but there is certainly a path to it that he touched on. IF Ukraine loses, and IF Putin goes for a NATO country, and somehow IF retains power during that, I can definitely see an exchange of nukes. Maybe not on US soil but as a defensive play on major European cities. There's a lot of IFs to work thru that I don't think we will ever see. But certainly reinforces the need to give Ukraine whatever they need to cripple Russia permanently. I love Zeihan's perspective and analysis, you (the royal you) have to take it in broad strokes though. His doom and gloom is just opportunity for innovation and new industry IMO. 

    I have read some of his stuff, and some it has merit, but in my opinion he cherry picks some valid points and ignores something that isn't quantifiable.  He point's toward geography and natural resources being the principle reason the US became and is a super power.  To a large to degree that is true, but he completely glosses over the biggest reason/resource we actually have; which is our people, our diversity, and our collective freedom to innovate.  That isn't quantifiable, you can't quite count an abstract concept like innovation as it relates to increased immigration like you can count how many navigable rivers we have or oceans we border.   Nor can you count/quantify the ability for a normal person to invent revolutionary concepts and quite literally come from nothing to being a global game changer.  While it's true that can happen in other parts of the world, and it does, historically speaking it doesn't happen at near the rate it does here.  The truth is, the US does well because ordinary people, from all sorts of backgrounds have opportunity.  All the rest of that is just icing on the cake.  

    • Hook 'Em 5
  10. 1 minute ago, atomheartbevo said:

    Zeihan is interesting when talking about economic issues and demographics and what Russia and China will be dealing with, but I get tired of hearing he and others talking about some huge buildup in troops that Putin is going to do to "win" over the next several months (Zeihan not as much, but there's a vocal group that still thinks Putin can pull off the Hail Mary).

    My problem is that if he had the ability to mobilize half-a-million troops or whatever number they are tossing about over the next several months, then why can't he fully supply the existing 300,000 or so?  And it's not like there are half-a-million Russian 17 year-olds that are about to turn 18 and be eligible or something - this supposed mass mobilization will be drawing from men who are already military-aged, so why aren't they already in uniform, rather than waiting until Ukraine has even more Western systems?

    And even if Putin was able to mobilize an additional half-million troops, that doesn't mean 500,000 men who are carrying rifles and holding territory, that means more likely less than 150,000 men who are carrying rifles and holding territory, and 350,000 men who are doing logistics, artillery, etc. to help keep those 150,000 or so in the fight (and the number of actual infantry maybe lower, because the number of people who support every guy on the front line is high in the West, but Russia cuts corners).  Even if he could get 150,000 real infantry added, in a country the size of Ukraine, that's not much, especially when you start spreading them out.

    In my view, these are valid points.   To me, the numbers in terms of total troops don't mean as much as they did in the past.  What does matter is the equipment.  We have seen the Ukrainians make mince meat of equipment with western weaponry, and nothing we would consider overly heavy.  However, what is already in country or beginning to get there is heavy equipment and weaponry. 

    Someone mentioned this being a force multiplier earlier and all this equipment is certainly that.  I think we have tendency to overestimate need when doing strategic planning.  For example, in Iraq 1, we sent a overwhelming force when in reality a fractional force would have been more than adequate.  Part of this is because we do things like contingency planning, which the Russians clearly don't.  As to adequacy, there are a couple of things to consider, 1 is that to my knowledge no Soviet/Russian equipment has a confirmed kill of something like an Abrams.  So what then is the multiplier effect, well, at current that's like dividing by zero.   Our only losses to my knowledge were from friendly fire or mechanical failure.  We lost a few Bradley's, but lessons were certainly learned, and upgrades have been made.  The combined effect of artillery, air munitions, armor, and mobile tactics makes what is going or already there an extraordinarily lethal force.  

    All that brings us back to sheer numbers in terms of infantry.  At the end of the day, if this is done right, Russian supply will be cut (this is already on going), equipment mangled (artillery is the actually a bigger concern than tanks, primarily because the Russians deploy such an enormous amount of it), you are going to wind up with Russian infantry squaring off against tanks, fighting vehicles, and precision artillery and precision air munitions (via drones or jdams).  I like the Ukrainian's odds under those conditions.  If you are sitting in a Russian trench right now, you are a dead man, you might just not know it yet.  

    • Hook 'Em 2
  11. 3 minutes ago, RDCanecutter said:

    What would impress me is not only taking out a T-72, but popping the turret just right so that it lands on top of another T-72. Which then blows up. Etc.

    If we are getting to the point of the Ukrainians doing trick shots for sport I'd be a happy guy.  For now, about 150k down, about 300k to go.  

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Like 1
    • Haha 1
  12. 27 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

    I agree. But I’m worried Western support will wane if UKR isn’t able to push Russia back to their borders this year.

    If we start to reduce arming UKR, they’ll be forced to negotiate a settlement that gives Russia more of UKR, Putin survives, and Russia goes back to late-Soviet era lifestyle.

    This isn't an unfounded thought and should not be dismissed.  I am worried that the heavier support is arriving too late in theater and the window is closing.  While we should see this matter thru in my opinion, that isn't necessarily what will happen.  If Western support erodes for any reason the Ukrainians will be forced to make a deal while on their knees and with no real recourse.  Our attention spans are short, and real progress needs to happen in the near term.  I fear the Ukrainians have but months really to win this thing, if this drags must past the fall, I fear support will falter.  

    • Hook 'Em 2
  13. 10 minutes ago, Bevo said:

    What would a Russian victory look like anyway? There would be nothing left in Ukraine except traps for the invaders. Meanwhile, NATO wouldn't be able to hold back Poland which is about the same size as Ukraine (40Mil). And Russia depleted of arms and stretched too thin would be pretty helpless to stop them. So yeah, in a drawn out war, the West would fold. However, the former USSR satellites would not fold and their involvement would then draw the "West" back into the war. Russia really doesn't have a path to victory unless it was smart and stopped offensives and simply consolidated past gains and negotiated - and in this sense Russia is not smart.

    A dead putin, many of the elites in the Hague and dead (some combination) a dismantling of their military and a complete overhaul of their society.  Short of that, it's a loss for them and the world.  

  14. 5 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

    Reading up on those things, holy shit, they came out of a program in the late 1940s, went into production in 1954 or 1955.  While that's only 5-10  years earlier than our M113s, we continued to upgrade and improve them quite a bit and knew their limitations.  Looks like the Russians took the last ones out of service 20 years ago, but they started going into storage in the 1970s.  Even if they are pulling the ones out that went into storage 20 years ago, 20 years of Russian "storage" is a lot different than American storage of such systems.

    Lots of info (this appears to be a cool site) BTR-50 - Tank Encyclopedia (tanks-encyclopedia.com)

    Edit: Looks like almost all were pulled from service in the 70s, replaced by the BMP-1, and the ones still in service in 2003 were a handful of speciality models that would not be anywhere near the front lines.

     

    The funny thing is, their principle tank engine designs are still based on models we sent them in the early 1940s, initially lead by one Walter Chrysler, who has in fact been dead for over 80 years now.  Obviously, they have made some improvements, but bottom line, that's true.  Because of budgetary limitations, the Soviets, and in turn the Russian Federation doesn't innovate, what they really do is attempt to improve proven tech.  They do the same thing in rocketry, hence whey they are still using the Vostok.  To put that in perspective, that would be like us continuing to use the Mercury program rockets to this very day.  Its a different mindset, and in peace there is an argument to be made that this is at least somewhat effective.  

    War on the hand is entirely about innovation.  Good news, they suck out loud at it.  The only thing they are good at is artillery en mass, and its destruction is the key to all this.  If their artillery is largely destroyed, the ground troops will be like lambs to the slaughter.  

    • Hook 'Em 4
×
×
  • Create New...