Ukraine War

[RomaVicta 29902]

I see now that the reports are not confirmed although they come from multiple Ukraine sources.

Keeping fingers crossed. I must say that I pity sailors aboard a burning ship. I'm reminded of Mandrake consoling the crazy General Ripper as the airbase's security force was being decimated by the enemy. "I'm sure they all died thinking of you sir." Apply to Putin.

[bolverk 29656]

13 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

I see now that the reports are not confirmed although they come from multiple Ukraine sources.

Keeping fingers crossed. I must say that I pity sailors aboard a burning ship. I'm reminded of Mandrake consoling the crazy General Ripper as the airbase's security force was being decimated by the enemy. "I'm sure they all died thinking of you sir." Apply to Putin.

I never really seriously considered enlisting as a young man but did at one point make the calculus that if I had to, I would've joined the Navy to "see the world". The idea though of jumping off a burning ship and having to float with a life jacket in shark infested waters quickly abused me of that notion.

Hell, wading chest deep in the Gulf freaks me out. 

[Captainant 27638]

Andrew Callaghan of Channel 5 News (formerly All Gas No Breaks) did some honest to god war reporting from Lviv. Incredible strength of those people to keep on living their life despite the air raid sirens and active war

 

[Nivek 16923]

 

Where will the GQP spend the 4th of July?

[Gil Bang 25921]

[Nivek 16923]

Would look so much cooler on C. Thomas Howell.

[Scheiss Meister 8407]

Yeah, I want one of those shirts.

[Nivek 16923]

For a long time, tanks have only been good for bullying an inferior opponent who presents no threat from the air and limited capability against a better trained American force. Now, as you point out, they're even more vulnerable than ever.
In many ways, it seems to me, tanks are like armored knights trying to find ways to survive the development of firearm. The heavy armor developed was too limiting to the soldier and not effective enough, so the armored knight passed into history.
I don't read as much about the military as I used to, but I do get the impression we're investing more in mobile lightly armored vehicles which, presumably, can be deployed in greater numbers with less logistical requirement. Sort of like the American Sherman in WWII; it wasn't a match for a single heavy German tank, but it was more reliable and more numerous.
I wouldn't want to be anywhere near a tank in real war. Iraqi tankers stayed in fox holes a hundred yards from their vehicles when they weren't on the move. They knew the danger.
Drones may be the bridge to totally vicarious warfare. Or maybe it will make conventional warfare so difficult that it won't break out so much.

The problem is that Russian Military Doctrine is following the British with the Mark V when it was introduced. Back then they figured out quickly that the tanks were best utilized when combined with Infantry.

Our WW2 Sherman’s were not intended to engage in tank to tank battles and while they were inferior at the start of the war, they came into their own with upgrades, experience and tactics. Tigers were cool tanks, but they had shit suspensions.

Knights didn’t disappear due to guns as much as refinements in cannon design and reliability. Armor was fairly sophisticated back then, and was “proofed” against the early firearms.

[WhatTheBuck 28775]

Jesus. The coverage of the atrocities committed by the Russians in Bucha on Amanpour & Co. tonight was just brutal. There was a mass grave outside a church. One man broke down when they uncovered the body of his brother. They found an old man who was a witness to the killing and he took them to where it happened. There were shell casings on the ground and bullet holes in a nearby fence. They found bodies bound an executed in a basement. There were Russian MRE wrappers on the ground outside. There was one guy who described a bunch of guys getting executed but he was spared because he found prove he fought for the Soviets in Afghanistan 40 years ago. He said the Russian soldiers were going house to house and deciding who to execute. He said they took those men around the side of a house, he heard the gunshots, then the soldiers came back alone. Just sickening stuff. 

[RomaVicta 29902]

Reuters reports Russians say the flagship has suffered serious damage and has been evacuated. They claim a fire onboard caused ammunition to explode.

Quote

KYIV/LVIV, Ukraine, April 14 (Reuters) - Russia said on Thursday the flagship of its Black Sea fleet was seriously damaged and its crew evacuated following an explosion that a Ukrainian official said was the result of a missile strike.

Russia's defence ministry said a fire on the Moskva missile cruiser caused ammunition to blow up, Interfax news agency reported.

It did not say what caused the fire but Maksym Marchenko, the Ukrainian governor of the region around the Black Sea port of Odesa, said the Moskva had been hit by two Ukrainian-made Neptune anti-ship cruise missiles.

I think the ship must be a total loss if it's been evacuated after multiple explosions. Russia at least admits the ship is heavily damaged.

[WhatTheBuck 28775]

If we don’t have SEALs in the area helping to take down Russian ships, and I don’t think that would necessarily be necessary to explain these two recent successful strikes on Russian ships, but if we don’t have them there now and if we determine that the Russians have launched any sort of chemical attack in Ukraine then that needs to happen.
 

[Caponata 151]

2 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

If we don’t have SEALs in the area helping to take down Russian ships, and I don’t think that would necessarily be necessary to explain these two recent successful strikes on Russian ships, but if we don’t have them there now and if we determine that the Russians have launched any sort of chemical attack in Ukraine then that needs to happen.
 

Doesn't that start WW3?

[Bama Chick 28596]

Let them eat Comic Sans.

[Post Oak 20208]

1 minute ago, Bama Chick said:

Let them eat Comic Sans.
 

Not quite on the level of Finland and Sweden joining NATO but close.

[Huckleberry 32848]

50 minutes ago, Caponata said:

Doesn't that start WW3?

Yes, if the world reacts to an invader's chemical weapon attack on a sovereign nation that's what started it. Not the invasion or chemical attack. 

Kind of like how Germany didn't start WWII. They were just innocently invading Poland when those bloodthirsty Brits and Frenchmen declared war. 

At least you're consistent. 

[horn4life 3759]

Well glad somebody is listening! Russian Warship damaged, Ukraine claims it was hit by two missiles

500 crew members evacuated, and Russia claims it was an "accident" (read incompetence) rather than a successful Ukrainian attack.  But this is apparently the flagship destroyer for the Russians.  Like I said previously you cannot hide a sunken (of severely damaged) ship. It will be demoralizing to their Navy and one more ngative for Putin and Co.

[horn4life 3759]

This is a huge propaganda win for Ukraine! When the ship is named Moscow, and it the same ship that got the "Fuck You!" From the 13 soldiers we thought got wiped out that is another layer of a good tale.  Especially since a few of those brave soldiers reportedly did survive.  This particular ship could not be aAbetter David and Goliath example of how this war is now going for the Goliath of Russia, versus the nimble and motivated Ukrainians.

I wish they could have sunken that fucker.  But in all honestly having it towed back into port might be better.  Simply as I have said before, it's hard to propagandize away a missing ship from the Navy and the people of the port towns that provide ships harbor.  Just as it would be here.  So having the flagship of your Navy towed back into port on display as no longer engaged in battler?  I think when we look back at the history of this war, this will be an inflection point where the control of the narrative inside Russia began to shift.  Can't hide ships damaged or disappearing forever. 

So go Ukraine!  Let's sink some fucking ships!!!

 

['stache 21797]

1 hour ago, Bama Chick said:

Let them eat Comic Sans.
 

[horn4life 3759]

Just to get an idea of the size of the bad boy that's going to limp back into port.  Also good to remove a launcher of cruise missiles with 700km range from the battlefield.

[The Dog 44019]

Well this is a switch:

Trump joins Biden in calling Russia’s war on Ukraine ‘genocide’

[Pescado_Rojo 19416]

5 minutes ago, horn4life said:

Just to get an idea of the size of the bad boy that's going to limp back into port.  Also good to remove a launcher of cruise missiles with 700km range from the battlefield.

It's not just the cruise missiles. This thing had an SA300 system and provided SAM cover for the whole Russian fleet. They are now extremely vulnerable to air attack. 

[TexArcher 37770]

8 minutes ago, The Dog said:

Well this is a switch:

Trump joins Biden in calling Russia’s war on Ukraine ‘genocide’

Vlad must have stopped returning Trump's late night "You up?" texts...

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

11 minutes ago, The Dog said:

Well this is a switch:

Trump joins Biden in calling Russia’s war on Ukraine ‘genocide’

Quote

“We have the strongest, most capable nuclear anywhere in the world because of what I did,” Trump said, reiterating his claim that Putin would not have invaded were he in office.

[Red Five 40846]

It's true. Prior to 2016, we had no nuclear. We didn't even know what it was. Trump gave us many nuclears, most with his own hands. Now we have most capable nuclear. 

[wildcat09 29347]

I know it didn't sink, but this is too good:

[Hookah Horns 3083]

16 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

From Wikipedia:

They've lost a half dozen generals, a military supply ship, and now this? 

Fuck the fuck around and fucking find fucking out you fucking motherfucker!

Gritty needs to be on this flag. I'd fly it on my house. 

['stache 21797]

35 minutes ago, Red Five said:

It's true. Prior to 2016, we had no nuclear. We didn't even know what it was. Trump gave us many nuclears, most with his own hands. Now we have most capable nuclear. 

Yup, I had never even heard that word before. Nu-cu-lar? What's that?

And if we have more, let's just go ahead and use them, right? If we wipe out 60% of their population and we only lose 40%, we win, right?

[Hookah Horns 3083]

49 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

Lulz dotard doesn't even know what the nuke triad is. 

[Red Five 40846]

Former president suddenly constantly throwing around the word nuclear. Totally normal, very cool. 

[wildcat09 29347]

11 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Yup, I had never even heard that word before. Nu-cu-lar? What's that?

And if we have more, let's just go ahead and use them, right? If we wipe out 60% of their population and we only lose 40%, we win, right?

I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed.

[RomaVicta 29902]

49 minutes ago, Red Five said:

It's true. Prior to 2016, we had no nuclear. We didn't even know what it was. Trump gave us many nuclears, most with his own hands. Now we have most capable nuclear. 

And the cyber. Don't forget the cyber.

[RomaVicta 29902]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed.

 

['stache 21797]

4 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

And the cyber. Don't forget the cyber.

I like cyber. a/s/l?

[hayden_horn 11362]

19 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

For a long time, tanks have only been good for bullying an inferior opponent who presents no threat from the air and limited capability against a better trained American force. Now, as you point out, they're even more vulnerable than ever.

In many ways, it seems to me, tanks are like armored knights trying to find ways to survive the development of firearm. The heavy armor developed was too limiting to the soldier and not effective enough, so the armored knight passed into history.

I don't read as much about the military as I used to, but I do get the impression we're investing more in mobile lightly armored vehicles which, presumably, can be deployed in greater numbers with less logistical requirement. Sort of like the American Sherman in WWII; it wasn't a match for a single heavy German tank, but it was more reliable and more numerous.

I wouldn't want to be anywhere near a tank in real war. Iraqi tankers stayed in fox holes a hundred yards from their vehicles when they weren't on the move. They knew the danger.

Drones may be the bridge to totally vicarious warfare. Or maybe it will make conventional warfare so difficult that it won't break out so much.

this is a very astute post.

read this book:

it wasn't just the firearm that ended the armored cavalry.

[HornOnTheBayou 8919]

3 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

Let them eat Comic Sans.
 

Begun, the Font Wars have.

[RomaVicta 29902]

Quote

Now the Russian military has admitted that the Moskva has been "seriously damaged" by a fire that caused ammunition to detonate.

No word about the cause.

In an update, the ministry later reported that the fire had been brought under control.

Yea,  slipping beneath the waves usually has that effect.

The Russians do indeed have a PR problem. Do you tow a hopeless, scorched wreck to a port for everyone to see that at least it still floats, or do you let it go under to at least save yourself the embarrassment of the visuals.

I really doubt that the cruiser is salvageable. I would like to see what it looks like. I've read that this thing is designed as an anti-aircraft carrier weapon. Supersonic missiles launched from 400 miles out sound pretty dangerous to me. Glad it's likely off the board.

 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13578]

Before Trump, all we had was oldclear. Now we got the nuclear, the cyber. They said it couldn't be done!

[Longhorn_Fan68 33867]

3 hours ago, Caponata said:

Doesn't that start WW3?

hey, comrade. can you see Alaska from your house?

22 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I like cyber. a/s/l?

14/f/Cali

[TreatyOak 16311]

14 hours ago, Nivek said:

The problem is that Russian Military Doctrine is following the British with the Mark V when it was introduced. Back then they figured out quickly that the tanks were best utilized when combined with Infantry.

Our WW2 Sherman’s were not intended to engage in tank to tank battles and while they were inferior at the start of the war, they came into their own with upgrades, experience and tactics. Tigers were cool tanks, but they had shit suspensions.

Knights didn’t disappear due to guns as much as refinements in cannon design and reliability. Armor was fairly sophisticated back then, and was “proofed” against the early firearms.

Agreed. German armor was hopelessly overrated. They had suspension problems, they made too many types of vehicles so replacing parts was a bitch, the overlapping wheels meant when a back wheel broke, you had to take off three. And as the war dragged on and they were running out of gas, what was their big solution? Build super-heavy vehicles that were horrible gas guzzlers and were too wide and heavy for the bridges of Europe. American and English tank engineering didn't get all the love but it was superior. 

Edited April 14, 2022 by TreatyOak

[WhatTheBuck 28775]

3 hours ago, Post Oak said:

Not quite on the level of Finland and Sweden joining NATO but close.

Speaking of which, from this morning:

[TreatyOak 16311]

I'm curious what people think here. Do you think that this war is revealing huge liabilities to our military's reliance on mechanized warfare and our carriers looking like giant targets, or do you ascribe the results of this war to the utter ineptness of the Russian military? 

[Red Five 40846]

2,1

[Longhorn_Fan68 33867]

15 minutes ago, TreatyOak said:

I'm curious what people think here. Do you think that this war is revealing huge liabilities to our military's reliance on mechanized warfare and our carriers looking like giant targets, or do you ascribe the results of this war to the utter ineptness of the Russian military? 

both. I think this conflict is exposing which "traditional" warfare vehicles are obsolete and which are still viable. but it also is exposing how woefully undertrained and prepared the Russian military is. We handed Ukraine some hand-held toys and Turkey handed them a few drones and now the Russian army is stuck and essentially retreating. As far as sea/air, I think we're still superior. Since our fleet is focused mostly on carriers and subs and theirs is destroyers/cruisers, I still think we have the advantage. Sure, a carrier is an easy target, but can you get anywhere near it? probably not

modern warfare will continue to move more towards "toys" and technology than heavy weapons. We'll see more hand-held weaponry capable of taking out tanks, planes, and even ships. don't think there will be a lot of orders for new M1A12's

[Longhorn_Fan68 33867]

this shit never gets old

 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

45 minutes ago, TreatyOak said:

I'm curious what people think here. Do you think that this war is revealing huge liabilities to our military's reliance on mechanized warfare and our carriers looking like giant targets, or do you ascribe the results of this war to the utter ineptness of the Russian military? 

Some of both. I've never held Russian military in high esteem, their equipment (the main bulk) is always outdated, and poorly maintained, it's army is filled with uneducated conscripts.

Our carriers are protected a bit better than the average Russian warships but with the advent of drone warfare the time of aircraft carriers may be coming to an end.

I think our military is moving to a more rapidly deployed, lighter, strike force type organization.  You can bet our intel, and tech folks are looking at this conflict in minute by minute detail.

You couldn't pay me enough money to drive a tank.

[TreatyOak 16311]

1 hour ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

both. I think this conflict is exposing which "traditional" warfare vehicles are obsolete and which are still viable. but it also is exposing how woefully undertrained and prepared the Russian military is. We handed Ukraine some hand-held toys and Turkey handed them a few drones and now the Russian army is stuck and essentially retreating. As far as sea/air, I think we're still superior. Since our fleet is focused mostly on carriers and subs and theirs is destroyers/cruisers, I still think we have the advantage. Sure, a carrier is an easy target, but can you get anywhere near it? probably not

modern warfare will continue to move more towards "toys" and technology than heavy weapons. We'll see more hand-held weaponry capable of taking out tanks, planes, and even ships. don't think there will be a lot of orders for new M1A12's

Thanks. While our carriers allow us to maintain a "blue water" navy, do you think the Chinese will develop some kind of drone attack system deployed by subs? 

[TreatyOak 16311]

45 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Some of both. I've never held Russian military in high esteem, their equipment (the main bulk) is always outdated, and poorly maintained, it's army is filled with uneducated conscripts.

Our carriers are protected a bit better than the average Russian warships but with the advent of drone warfare the time of aircraft carriers may be coming to an end.

I think our military is moving to a more rapidly deployed, lighter, strike force type organization.  You can bet our intel, and tech folks are looking at this conflict in minute by minute detail.

You couldn't pay me enough money to drive a tank.

I think you are right on all points. However, do you think our tanks are more resistant to damage than the Russian ones are, or are they just bigger targets? 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

47 minutes ago, TreatyOak said:

I think you are right on all points. However, do you think our tanks are more resistant to damage than the Russian ones are, or are they just bigger targets? 

I think we probably have the most technically advanced tanks overall, and use them better tactically (almost as important as the technical capabilities IMO).  We also like operating at night which most armies can't do on a large scale.  That's a huge advantage over most any enemy.  I don't see American tanks running single file, down a highway, in broad daylight, in a battle theater.

I don't know how well tanks hold off the things a soldier can load up against his shoulder, and fire today though.

[TreatyOak 16311]

15 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I think we probably have the most technically advanced tanks overall, and use them better tactically (almost as important as the technical capabilities IMO).  We also like operating at night which most armies can't do on a large scale.  That's a huge advantage over most any enemy.  I don't see American tanks running single file, down a highway, in broad daylight, in a battle theater.

I don't know how well tanks hold off the things a soldier can load up against his shoulder, and fire today though.

What's interesting is that over the last few years, YouTube has been hosting lots of GoPro videos of Syrian tanks blundering around urban settings with no air or ground support and getting destroyed. Now, I'm astounded to see the Russians employing the exact same horrible tactics. It appears the Russians are no more competent than the bad Arab armies.   

[Pescado_Rojo 19416]

17 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I think we probably have the most technically advanced tanks overall, and use them better tactically (almost as important as the technical capabilities IMO).  We also like operating at night which most armies can't do on a large scale.  That's a huge advantage over most any enemy.  I don't see American tanks running single file, down a highway, in broad daylight, in a battle theater.

I don't know how well tanks hold off the things a soldier can load up against his shoulder, and fire today though.

Not just that. We run a screening force of APCs and DISMOUNTED infantry pushed out far enough ahead to intercept the small teams with shoulder launched ATGMs that Ukraine is using to hit and run the RU armor. Also, our tanks are better designed with an armored magazine with blast doors located in the tank body, not the turret.