Ukraine War

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, Pescado_Rojo said:

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. 

'Zactly, tactics go hand in hand with, and support our technology.  

[Hookah Horns 3078]

2 hours 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? 

Carriers are massive targets, that's why they are grouped with subs and other surface ships. Taking out/sinking a carrier is pretty much impossible for most of the world. China's probably the only country that could threaten a carrier group, and we're not going to have a conventional war with China.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

4 minutes ago, TreatyOak said:

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.   

When you have an idiot commanding an army who doesn't get accurate Intel or hear about failure that's what you get.  Tanks alone are kind of sitting ducks, especially in urban environments.  

That and the Russians really aren't the great military MENSA candidates some would believe IMO.  Their systems don't breed innovation, a or take charge mentality.

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11668]

18 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

Carriers are massive targets, that's why they are grouped with subs and other surface ships. Taking out/sinking a carrier is pretty much impossible for most of the world. China's probably the only country that could threaten a carrier group, and we're not going to have a conventional war with China.

i used to believe that, but now more and more i lean toward

i think the world is all about small, fast, and invisible.  big, slow, and heavy are yesterday's news.  

 

[WhatTheBuck 28708]

3 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

I think the world is all about small, fast, and invisible. 

Yeah, but you’ll need something to carry those things. 

[RomaVicta 29781]

40 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

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. 

 

38 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

'Zactly, tactics go hand in hand with, and support our technology.  

Again, we deploy armor better than anybody, but the tactics you describe haven't been tried on a modern battlefield that offers forest and mountain cover for well-trained, disciplined defenders. Tanks are optimal in the desert where they can go just about anywhere.

The question should be if we are thinking straight if we're designing strategy to protect weapon systems that are likely outdated. I'm not particularly well read on today's military, but I get the impression that we are spending money on multiple lightly armored platforms on land instead of pouring all that money into a single heavily armored vehicle whose increasing vulnerability requires inordinate support from other units.

I feel the same about our carrier groups which are massively expensive because they require subs, cruisers, and destroyers to protect. I just looked up that we have 11 of these. I recall Reagan stated the idiotic notion that we should have 20 so they could sail en masse to the Russian or Chinese coast and attack the mainland.

The carriers are useful in scaring the fuck out of weaker countries near the sea. Against a capable enemy with subs and long range missiles, I don't think they'll survive long. Maybe have 5 of them and either save the money or figure out the next generation of warship.

When I was reading more about military matters back in the 1980s, there was a story in a reliable publication about the vulnerability of carriers. In war games, American subs would never get credit for sinking a carrier. On more than one occasion, the sub commander took a photograph of the carrier through his periscope; he still didn't get credit for a hit.

The Abrams tank is a remarkable fighting vehicle. The American aircraft carrier is likely the most remarkable warship and fighting system ever devised. I think they're cool. I loved the Missouri, too, right up until they retired it. It's likely time to retire these "newer" weapons systems as well. 

[RomaVicta 29781]

29 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Yeah, but you’ll need something to carry those things. 

I'll do it.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33840]

Quote

The cruiser Moskva sank while being towed in a storm, the Russian Defense Ministry said:

 

[RomaVicta 29781]

No major outlets have confirmed the sinking...yet.

BBC confirms!

I'm surprised we haven't seen satellite or other photography of the vessel. I wonder if it's more respectful to wait to show images of another country's warship blazing away. On reading the above, I thought again about the image projection for Russia; do they really want a heavily damaged, unsalvageable ship towed into a harbor to be photographed and seen?

Anyway, on the Elint twitter site there was this:

Edited April 14, 2022 by RomaVicta

[wildcat09 29234]

5 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

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

FIFM.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33840]

man, I wonder who came up with the "accidental fire caused the munitions to ignite" excuse. either they're getting a promotion or polonium tea, not sure which

[Brisketexan 104587]

So, I mean......should this now be the unofficial flag of the Ukrainian armed forces?

 

 

Because Jesus.....Russia is just getting DRAGGED.

[WhatTheBuck 28708]

Stavridis had a good line on Morning Joe today. Something to the effect of, “In your first year at Annapolis, the first thing they teach you is, ‘Don’t let your flagship get blown up.’”

[Huckleberry 32699]

11 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

No major outlets have confirmed the sinking...yet.

BBC confirms!

I'm surprised we haven't seen satellite or other photography of the vessel. I wonder if it's more respectful to wait to show images of another country's warship blazing away. On reading the above, I thought again about the image projection for Russia; do they really want a heavily damaged, unsalvageable ship towed into a harbor to be photographed and seen?

Anyway, on the Elint twitter site there was this:

Sinking it prevents more eyes and cameras that could confirm missile damage visual evidence. As we've seen from the Russian fanboys in the Republican ranks, narrative and perception are far more important than reality and claiming you're incompetent is less damaging in the perception war than admitting your opponent got the better of you. 

[Felix 599]

As for the "is armor obsolete" debate like most things it's complicated.  As for pure combat power, nothing beats a MBT, but that also makes them the primary target for the enemy.  The US combined arms strategy is designed to protect the mobile units as they attempt to break through and encircle the enemy, thus breaking supply lines and preventing enemy formations from being able to operate as fuel and ammunition runs out and they can be mopped up by follow on units.  That hasn't change much and still has it's place. Seeing as how we developed these tactics based on blitzkrieg (as did the Soviets) it's well established doctrine.  Tanks operated with infantry, artillery, and air support are extremely effective at controlling territory because of their mobility, firepower, and ability to communicate and coordinate.

Now on the modern battlefield there are more challenges, but as was touched on above, what sets us apart is our ability to see and engage the enemy.  It's very, very hard to hide from thermal imaging tech and ours is light years beyond anything Russia uses.  All that being said, sure it's easier to kill individual tanks, but formations of tanks used correctly will dominate most battlefields.  Exceptions being urban, forest/jungle, or mountainous. 

Full disclosure.  I was a tanker.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33840]

2 minutes ago, Felix said:

As for the "is armor obsolete" debate like most things it's complicated.  As for pure combat power, nothing beats a MBT, but that also makes them the primary target for the enemy.  The US combined arms strategy is designed to protect the mobile units as they attempt to break through and encircle the enemy, thus breaking supply lines and preventing enemy formations from being able to operate as fuel and ammunition runs out and they can be mopped up by follow on units.  That hasn't change much and still has it's place. Seeing as how we developed these tactics based on blitzkrieg (as did the Soviets) it's well established doctrine.  Tanks operated with infantry, artillery, and air support are extremely effective at controlling territory because of their mobility, firepower, and ability to communicate and coordinate.

Now on the modern battlefield there are more challenges, but as was touched on above, what sets us apart is our ability to see and engage the enemy.  It's very, very hard to hide from thermal imaging tech and ours is light years beyond anything Russia uses.  All that being said, sure it's easier to kill individual tanks, but formations of tanks used correctly will dominate most battlefields.  Exceptions being urban, forest/jungle, or mountainous. 

Full disclosure.  I was a tanker.

so knowing what you know now and with modern anti-tank weapons, would you ever climb back in one if there were conflict?

[Felix 599]

I'm not sure I could actually get in one now, but that's nothing to do with "will". Seriously I'd get in a M1A2 operated by the US Army tomorrow and feel pretty good about my chances in any conflict.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

7 minutes ago, Felix said:

As for the "is armor obsolete" debate like most things it's complicated.  As for pure combat power, nothing beats a MBT, but that also makes them the primary target for the enemy.  The US combined arms strategy is designed to protect the mobile units as they attempt to break through and encircle the enemy, thus breaking supply lines and preventing enemy formations from being able to operate as fuel and ammunition runs out and they can be mopped up by follow on units.  That hasn't change much and still has it's place. Seeing as how we developed these tactics based on blitzkrieg (as did the Soviets) it's well established doctrine.  Tanks operated with infantry, artillery, and air support are extremely effective at controlling territory because of their mobility, firepower, and ability to communicate and coordinate.

Now on the modern battlefield there are more challenges, but as was touched on above, what sets us apart is our ability to see and engage the enemy.  It's very, very hard to hide from thermal imaging tech and ours is light years beyond anything Russia uses.  All that being said, sure it's easier to kill individual tanks, but formations of tanks used correctly will dominate most battlefields.  Exceptions being urban, forest/jungle, or mountainous. 

Full disclosure.  I was a tanker.

Thanks, great post.  Tactics are the essence of victory.. Sun Tzu said that, and if he didn't he sure as shit should have.

[Felix 599]

I'd say doctrine instead of tactics since one informs the other, but in essence I agree.  If our Army had been conducting this operation the Ukrainian military would have been utterly destroyed as a fighting force within a week.  We would have lost people and we'd have the same issues with an insurgency as anyone but the war would have been over for all intents an purposes within a very short period of time.

[Captainant 27447]

2 minutes ago, Felix said:

I'd say doctrine instead of tactics since one informs the other, but in essence I agree.  If our Army had been conducting this operation the Ukrainian military would have been utterly destroyed as a fighting force within a week.  We would have lost people and we'd have the same issues with an insurgency as anyone but the war would have been over for all intents an purposes within a very short period of time.

No doubt about that - russia failed utterly in their logistics. Meanwhile logistics is essentially dogma in the US armed forces lol

wrt/ if armor is obsolete or not - I think it's going to still have a place in armies, but not to the degree that it once did. It's interesting to think of modern MBT's as something akin to an Iowa class BB during the gulf war: incredibly useful and powerful, but with some strategic and tactical limitations from the advancements in tech and tactics.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, Felix said:

I'd say doctrine instead of tactics since one informs the other, but in essence I agree.  If our Army had been conducting this operation the Ukrainian military would have been utterly destroyed as a fighting force within a week.  We would have lost people and we'd have the same issues with an insurgency as anyone but the war would have been over for all intents an purposes within a very short period of time.

Yep, the US military breaks shit better than any other fighting force on the planet...  I also like to think we try to conserve manpower without needlessly putting them at risk.

[Felix 599]

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

No doubt about that - russia failed utterly in their logistics. Meanwhile logistics is essentially dogma in the US armed forces lol

wrt/ if armor is obsolete or not - I think it's going to still have a place in armies, but not to the degree that it once did. It's interesting to think of modern MBT's as something akin to an Iowa class BB during the gulf war: incredibly useful and powerful, but with some strategic and tactical limitations from the advancements in tech and tactics.

Nothing lasts forever but until there is a new system (powered infantry armor) that is as tough, fast, and with the firepower of a tank, they will have their place.  They may be easier to kill but there is still nothing else that fills that niche.

IMO the biggest threat to armor that I see is guided artillery as Ukraine is using now.  Currently you still need someone to paint the target but eventually it will be able to identify the target itself (safely enough to prevent blue on blue kills) and that's the end of the road.  I've been out of the biz for a while so it wouldn't surprise me if we already have something like that in the works that is very near, if not already, in production.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33840]

3 minutes ago, Felix said:

Nothing lasts forever but until there is a new system (powered infantry armor) that is as tough, fast, and with the firepower of a tank, they will have their place.  They may be easier to kill but there is still nothing else that fills that niche.

IMO the biggest threat to armor that I see is guided artillery as Ukraine is using now.  Currently you still need someone to paint the target but eventually it will be able to identify the target itself (safely enough to prevent blue on blue kills) and that's the end of the road.  I've been out of the biz for a while so it wouldn't surprise me if we already have something like that in the works that is very near, if not already, in production.

oh, they exist. lol, the weapons we know about are likely functionally obsolete due to the shit we have behind locked doors

Edited April 14, 2022 by Longhorn_Fan68

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

3 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

oh, they exist. lol, the weapons we know about are likely functionally obsolete due to the shit we have behind locked doors

Oh I'm sure they've finally been able to reverse engineer those UFO's we've got out there in AREA 52... (they moved from Area 51). 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33840]

lol, shit

 

[RomaVicta 29781]

8 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Yep, the US military breaks shit better than any other fighting force on the planet...  I also like to think we try to conserve manpower without needlessly putting them at risk.

All of that means greater death and destruction for non-combatants. We need to face up to that fact when we weigh whether to engage in a full scale invasion. Is the collateral damage worth inflicting to meet whatever our real goal is. 

Would the debate and decision about the Iraq invasion have been different if we included the part that we may end up killing a 100,000 or more civilians because of the way we wage war? I don't know, but the factor should be included in the discussion.

Don't get me wrong, I fully recognize that there are situations where I would find civilian deaths justifiable. I don't lose any sleep over the civilians who died in bin Laden's compound. Had I thought Iraq likely had WMDs that were a threat to us or world stability, I would okay the cost in civilians there, too. But those Iraquis died because Americans were pursuing a neo-con/GOP lie that the Dems rolled over for.

Side Note: Thanks to Felix for his contribution to the tank conversation. I still wonder about how the American tank would perform in Ukraine or some other environment different from the desert.

Edited April 15, 2022 by RomaVicta

[horn4life 3755]

Well the good news is they actually did sink the motherfucker!

Poor Putin, the fucking flagship of the Russian Navy, sunk after the embarrassment of getting run out of the Kyiv area with the Army.  I do also remember a report of the Russians shooting down one of their own.

 

SINK MORE SHIPS!!!!

[RomaVicta 29781]

9 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

lol, shit

 

I had to zoom to see the joke. 

[Brisketexan 104587]

21 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Yep, the US military breaks shit better than any other fighting force on the planet...  I also like to think we try to conserve manpower without needlessly putting them at risk.

That is also a huge point of contrast between the US and Russia.

We had huge public sentiment against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in part because the casualties were unacceptable.  Iraq war dead (8 years): 4424.  Afghanistan war dead (20 years): 1833.  TOTAL DEATHS FROM BOTH: 6255.

The Russians blew past that number like 10 days into their war with Ukraine.  And they give zero fucks.  They don't care how much Russian meat goes into the grinder.  Just keep throwing bodies at it, and overwhelm with sheer numbers because quantity has a quality all its own.

Our cultures are light-years apart in that respect.

11 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Oh I'm sure they've finally been able to reverse engineer those UFO's we've got out there in AREA 52... (they moved from Area 51). 

See, it's one better than Area 51.....

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

23 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

lol, shit

 

Ohhh.... dat's Beauuuuuuuutyful....

[WhatTheBuck 28708]

13 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Would the debate and decision about the Iraq invasion have been different if we included the part that we may end up killing a 100,000 or more civilians because of the way we wage war?

Under Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Feith/Perle/Bolton/etc.? Not a chance in hell. 

[RomaVicta 29781]

I just can't get over reviewing what the Russians have subjected themselves to with this disastrous invasion.

 

Quote

Forbes estimated the cost of the wrecked Russian cruiser at $ 750 million

The loss in generals is extraordinary. Recall in We Were Soldiers that the loss of an American colonel on the battlefield would have been considered a disaster.

 

And there are the other materiel losses that sound like something from WWII:

 

A flagship, a fist full of generals, and 2500 armored vehicles. My friends, that's what losing a war in humiliating fashion looks like. It's truly astonishing. i know I didn't expect it although military experts who knew Ukraine were pretty much saying Ukraine would perform well. I know I don't want to fuck with them unless it's absolutely necessary.

 

Edited April 14, 2022 by RomaVicta

[WhatTheBuck 28708]

19 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

I had to zoom to see the joke. 

I admit I went looking for Bert. 

[Brisketexan 104587]

27 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

I just can't get over reviewing reviewing what the Russians have subjected themselves to with this disastrous invasion.

 

The loss in generals is extraordinary. Recall in We Were Soldiers that the loss of an American colonel on the battlefield would have been considered a disaster.

 

And there are the other materiel losses that sound like something from WWII:

 

A flagship, a fist full of generals, and 2500 armored vehicles. My friends, that's what losing a war in humiliating fashion looks like. It's truly astonishing. i know I didn't expect it although military experts who knew Ukraine were pretty much saying Ukraine would perform well. I know I don't want to fuck with them unless it's absolutely necessary.

 

I mean....these were some wise fucking words, in retrospect:

 

[TreatyOak 16150]

While we can't say for sure how US/Western armor and tactics would hold up in the new, drone-dominated battlefield, it sure is nice to watch someone else learn the hard lessons and try to learn from it, rather than getting our forces battered.

It sure looks like the Russians are learning some very hard lessons. After fighting in our last two un-winnable wars, I am glad that it was Putin that dragged his country into a hopelessly un-winnable war. I'm so sorry for the Ukrainian people and even the Russian conscripts who have to die for one man's vanity.

[NWBuck 8547]

2 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Tanks, great post.  Tactics are the essence of victory.. Sun Tzu said that, and if he didn't he sure as shit should have.

minor edit

Edited April 14, 2022 by NWBuck

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

49 minutes ago, NWBuck said:

minor edit

 

[TreatyOak 16150]

Say what you want about the Daily Mail but they do have some awesome graphics:

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11668]

Pretty eye opening interview with the Russian ambassador about the Moskva. 
 

 

[Hornius Emeritus 12419]

When 60 Minutes visited the Moskva ship, which is now lying at the bottom of the sea:
 

 

[Hookah Horns 3078]

The Russian military gives off strong Charlie Strong Longhorns vibes. All they need is some shiny decals for their helmets. 

[Hornius Emeritus 12419]

 

Edited April 15, 2022 by Hornius Emeritus

[WhatTheBuck 28708]

According to the BBC, Russia says Kyiv will pay, coincidentally just after the sinking of the Moskva which was totally not sunk by Ukrainian missiles but by a fire on board.

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-61101906

Quote

Russia vows more strikes on Kyiv after 'missile attack'

The Russian defence ministry says it has carried out missile strikes targeting Ukraine's capital, Kyiv, warning that attacks like this will intensify in retaliation for what it called Ukrainian "terror attacks" or "acts of sabotage" in Russia.

Russia says its sea-based cruise missiles struck a factory in the city overnight, which produces air-defence systems and anti-ship missiles.

As a result, the plant's "workshops for the production and repair of long-range and medium-range anti-aircraft missile systems, as well as anti-ship missiles, were destroyed", the ministry added in a statement published on its Telegram channel.

 

[Nivek 16856]

How they are going to be more murderous, rapey, and kidnappy?

[WhatTheBuck 28708]

18 minutes ago, Nivek said:

How they are going to be more murderous, rapey, and kidnappy?

They won’t be, they’ll just be more focused. They won’t try to murder, rape, and kidnap the whole country all at once. They’ll go one town at a time. 

[Brisketexan 104587]

30 minutes ago, Nivek said:

How they are going to be more murderous, rapey, and kidnappy?

Maybe they'll say "rape" twice?

[Chad Fuck 17563]

32 minutes ago, Nivek said:

How they are going to be more murderous, rapey, and kidnappy?

One of the things I've learned in this whole deal is that the Russians are not very savvy negotiators.  
 

"If you join Nato, we will punish you."  Proceeds to evade Ukraine, which, coincidentally did not join NATO.  Sweden and Finland, "Yeah, we know we've been neutral forever, but Russia is making us reconsider..." Russia:  "If you join NATO..."

Example eleventy bajillion of this.  

[RomaVicta 29781]

The Russians have succeeded in demonstrating exactly how powerful a threat their military is.

[Brisketexan 104587]

12 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

One of the things I've learned in this whole deal is that the Russians are not very savvy negotiators.  
 

"If you join Nato, we will punish you."  Proceeds to evade Ukraine, which, coincidentally did not join NATO.  Sweden and Finland, "Yeah, we know we've been neutral forever, but Russia is making us reconsider..." Russia:  "If you join NATO..."

Example eleventy bajillion of this.  

 

1 minute ago, RomaVicta said:

The Russians have succeeded in demonstrating exactly how powerful a threat their military is.

Both of these are true, which is a double fuckup by Russia.

They have proven point 1: if you are not a member of a protective alliance like NATO, we won't hesitate to invade you and fuck shit up.

In doing just that, they have also proven point 2: if you ARE a member of NATO, the military power you bring to bear will wipe out the Russian conventional threat within a few days.

 

When you put those two points together, you just made a better case for joining NATO than 50 years of US sales pitches could ever do.  Seriously, I couldn't craft a better plan for getting other European nations to join NATO if I tried, and Russia just executed it......when their goal was the exact opposite.

We live in the dumbest fucking timeline, across the board.

[TreatyOak 16150]

I have another question for the forum:

Based on the current Russian clown-show that they have revealed themselves to be, do you think the old 70's-80's Soviet Union would have been more effective in their operations? Is this indicative of Putin ruining his military or is this of incompetence something that is always pervasive in Russia military operations?