Русский корабль - иди нахуй

[686 3450]

Stugna vs. dismounted infantry; big splash:

[Gatorubet 30278]

59 minutes ago, SHOOTER12 said:

Negged for paid subscription link.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-many-tanks-does-ukraine-have-why-more-now-79z65hrqx

Would love to read it. Can someone with a subscription post the article?

[blacklab 11942]

enough about china. go start a fucking china thread if you want to talk about them

[atomheartbevo 89771]

3 hours ago, SL Xpress said:

I didn't base my opinion on analytics, though. I based it on what the results were when the real Russian army crossed the border in force and wiped out the Ukrainians with ease in the Donbas. I vastly underestimated how much the Ukrainians had reformed their military in terms of leadership and overall effectiveness, even if they hadn't upgraded their equipment that much.

Many of us underestimated them, outside of people like Ben Hodges and Mark Hertling who had actually worked with them since 2014.

When Russia invaded in 2014, the Ukrainians had two problems - they had a pro-Russian leadership that had fucked the military over, and they, along with the Russians, were still fighting with a Cold War/Soviet warfare model/mindset and training (and arguably Iraq had it in 1991).

Because Russia succeeded in 2014, and because of Russia's corruption, they saw no reason to change how they fought, but Ukraine did see a reason to change how they trained and fought, using the Western model, which was always that we'd be at a numerical disadvantage, so we needed to make up for it elsewhere, and the Ukrainians are following that model. Ukrainians are constantly improvising, adapting, and overcoming, and they are doing it at the junior levels, whereas the Russians can't/won't.  Decisions that would be made by an NCO or junior officer in the West or in Ukraine's military, are made by Lt. Colonels and Colonels in the Russian military.  It's crazy.

3 hours ago, SL Xpress said:

It's been extremely heartening to witness the Russian Army - and their kleptocratic system as a whole - be so incompetent across the board. It's like watching a cartoon villain be a complete idiot,

Several months ago, when Russia discovered that a million and a half winter uniforms were missing, or most likely had never been manufactured and that somebody (or several somebodies) had made off with the funds, that was possibly peak Russia in terms of the military.  A whole lot of people were pointing fingers at one another, and the people acting most shocked probably had a hand in it.  Or maybe it was the bit about getting their moms/wives/girlfriends to send them tampons for their first aid kids.

[Gatorubet 30278]

54 minutes ago, MissingInAction said:

And the Gubment contract boners going around in the US will be lobbying heavily for continued support of our Freedom Fighting Brothers and Sisters in Ukraine.

If there was a peacenik versus military industrial complex (and a concomitant, political donations) race, the odds would be so badly skewed towards the mic they would’ve taken it off the board in Vegas. 

[Gatorubet 30278]

5 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

When Russia invaded in 2014, the Ukrainians had two problems - they had a pro-Russian leadership that had fucked the military over, and they, along with the Russians, were still fighting with a Cold War/Soviet warfare model/mindset and training (and arguably Iraq had it in 1991).Because Russia succeeded in 2014, and because of Russia's corruption, they saw no reason to change how they fought, but Ukraine did see a reason to change how they trained and fought, using the Western model, which was always that we'd be at a numerical disadvantage, so we needed to make up for it elsewhere, and the Ukrainians are following that model. 

I am not trying to defend our 2014 response to Crimea, but I wonder if it had to turn out the way it turned out to get us to the good point we are today.   If the Ukrainian military was basically Russia without stuff in 2014, I’m not so sure how our military aid to Ukraine could’ve resulted in a positive outcome.      In one of those unexpected consequences type situations, the debacle of 2014 was the catalyst that enabled the total reform of the Ukrainian military - which is a far greater reason they are still standing and fighting.  IOW, an outcome that may not have been possible despite the injection of military equipment - without that changed mindset.   See our ton of great kit given the Afghanistan military that made exactly zero difference in the Taliban’s success.

It’s sort of like those lost German bombers hitting an English civilian target that made the RAF bomb Berlin in response…which led to Germany’ Luftwaffe moving their focus from RAF bases and radar to bombing British civilian targets.  It allowed the RAF and its pilots to regroup and ultimately win the Battle of Britain.    

Maybe the unfortunate annexation of Crimea was that same fortuitous catalyst that will lead to a Ukrainian victory in 2023.

[Brisketexan 105192]

27 minutes ago, blacklab said:

enough about china. go start a fucking china thread if you want to talk about them

Man....who put pee-pee in YOUR coke?

[Gatorubet 30278]

11 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Man....who put pee-pee in YOUR coke?

I was gonna say the Chinese, but now I won’t. 

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

1 hour ago, blacklab said:

enough about china. go start a fucking china thread if you want to talk about them

we’re talking about China playing an active role in this war and discussing the ripple effect that could have. Stop being a thread nazi.

[Chad Fuck 17713]

I wasn't even talking about Gina and my post disappeared?  Weird.

[Kel Varnsen 8540]

23 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

we’re talking about China playing an active role in this war and discussing the ripple effect that could have. Stop being a thread nazi.

[staboner 4984]

7 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Good post.
It’s about figuring out the balance: how much weight do you give objective measures (how many tanks you have) vs subjective measures (how well you know how to use tanks).
Think of it this way: it’s why many of the greatest quarterbacks aren’t necessarily great specimens on paper. Back in the day, I thought Ryan Leaf would be a better draft pick than Peyton Manning because of the objective physical tools. But it turns out that what each guy’s head could do (or not do) was way more determinative of their success.
Russia started this war with a lot of strong pieces in strong positions on their side of the chess board, compared to Ukraine’s fewer and weaker pieces. If both chess players were is similar skill, Russia wins in a few weeks. Turns out that in this metaphor, Russia sucked at chess, and wasted multiple capital pieces in stupid attacks on an opponent with limited prices…but great skill, aptitude, and desire.
The concern is that at some level, no amount of skill differential can make up for the chess piece differential. If you give me a fully loaded side of the board, and give Kasparov a King and two pawns…I’m gonna beat him, even though he’s 1,000x the player that I am. The real question is, where is that line. If you give him a Bishop and a Knight as well, then does he beat me, the inferior player with all the pieces? Maybe (I mean, he’s Kasparov, and I’m pretty rusty). It’s really difficult to game that out in the real world, with armies and gear and ammo and weather and logistics and strategies and small squad tactics etc.
But I believe in Ukraine and the Ukrainian people. I believe that this is the most important conflict in the past 80 years. I believe that helping Ukraine win is the most important foreign policy task we’ve had in my lifetime.

 

7 hours ago, BamaATL said:

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?

good points. My 2 cents. analytics and really just predicting the future is good within BAU. When we get outside that we see what we feel is an irrational actor (Putin invading Ukraine for example), but as @NAVY also points out in his post, maybe Putin/Russia was just bad data. Just perspective. If we could have factored in "out-dated soviet warmongering view, currently ill, with lots of small dick energy, with corrupt, never used army of 20+ years" more aptly then maybe we would have accurately predicted this shitshow. 

This war is so good for everyone else not named Ivan or wtf Ukrainians name themselves. The models will get updated and our intel priorities will be revisited, as @BamaATL shows us it was as inadequate as the Russian army.

Analytics is great in a more controlled environment like baseball. Too much BS in the real world. I'd even say football is closer to war than baseball, and thus analytics a bit less useful. I love @atomheartbevo putting Zeihan on there on the reg. His views are great, but they also lack the human element. His American boner is clear, and easy to understand. However, IMO his lack of caring or even acknowledging the people aspect renders his timelines and predictions mostly academic. America does indeed have all the resources, geography, etc to be OP for sure, but lots of Americans certainly aren't healthy, and the goals and priorities of the society are somewhat not in the right direction, but thats my judgement of course. 

huh, sounds alot like a certain football team, with all the resources, but a pussy ass culture that can't seem to ah sorry, wrong meeting. Is this? wait.

Hope you homies are well. Thanks for the updates as always, and great conversations. Get fucked putin

[The Dog 44073]

WTF???!!!

 

[Walser 1109]

My friend in Ukraine let me know about a Year One documentary locally produced there that was released yesterday. It is lengthy, but the quality is good and it has English subtitles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhssmUtN874  - part 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlkzADUfb3s  - part 2

[Superhero 8833]

11 minutes ago, The Dog said:

WTF???!!!

 

If it’s true. Then fuck Elon Musk.

 

Actually… fuck him anyway. He may be brilliant, but he’s still an asshole. 

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

42 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Sorry, but that’s absurd. China deciding to arm Russia and fight a proxy war with the West is a massive deal. The idea we can’t talk about that possibility IN THE THREAD DISCUSSING SAID WAR is insane.

[Rimbo 26031]

5 hours ago, Walser said:

She is in her twenties (no pics)

[Bevo 13592]

2 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

Many of us underestimated them, outside of people like Ben Hodges and Mark Hertling who had actually worked with them since 2014.

When Russia invaded in 2014, the Ukrainians had two problems - they had a pro-Russian leadership that had fucked the military over, and they, along with the Russians, were still fighting with a Cold War/Soviet warfare model/mindset and training (and arguably Iraq had it in 1991).

 

When did we start giving them weapons? You forgot that part.

[Rimbo 26031]

11 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

Sorry, but that’s absurd. China deciding to arm Russia and fight a proxy war with the West is a massive deal. The idea we can’t talk about that possibility IN THE THREAD DISCUSSING SAID WAR is insane.

you seriously need to just shut the fuck up with your shitty takes and digressions

you are contributing negative value to this thread

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Man....who put pee-pee in YOUR coke?

[JesusSweatDuck 17787]

4 hours ago, NAVY said:

Git you some 

 

Those tracers are what, 1 in every 10 rounds?

[Auto Driller 2506]

3 minutes ago, JesusSweatDuck said:

Those tracers are what, 1 in every 10 rounds?

Typically it’s every 5th round. At least in small arms.

[JesusSweatDuck 17787]

Just now, Auto Driller said:

Typically it’s every 5th round. At least in small arms.

Still, that rate of fire is mind-blowing 

[Armybrat 40861]

53 minutes ago, Superhero said:

If it’s true. Then fuck Elon Musk.

 

Actually… fuck him anyway. He may be brilliant, but he’s still a crazy asshole. 

Fify

[Gatorubet 30278]

50 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

Sorry, but that’s absurd. China deciding to arm Russia and fight a proxy war with the West is a massive deal. The idea we can’t talk about that possibility IN THE THREAD DISCUSSING SAID WAR is insane.

Russia talk begat Russian allies talk - which begat China talk - which begat China problems talk - which begat Covid talk - which might attract Johnny Sack insights.   

Are you sure about that Kevin Bacon?

[Slacks 6835]

On 2/23/2023 at 10:27 PM, Dahobbs said:

Did you just quote yourself in the post your quoting?

[Gatorubet 30278]

in all seriousness, I don’t think Black Lab has a problem with some discussion about China providing arms to the Ukraine/Russia conflict.  It’s essentially the same topic as - say - France providing arms to the Ukraine/Russia conflict.  

I am very sure he does not want this thread to discuss the myriad of political and economic problems in China - and other issues involving China that are not “did China give drones to Russia?” type stuff.

I really don’t think it’s that hard to figure out.

 

[MagicSoccerSpray 1732]

8 hours ago, MissingInAction said:

Once Ukraine has their armored divisions ready I predict they make a blitzkrieg to Mariopol , then work north with the armor. Meanwhile an offensive from Kherson towards Crimea begins.

All the while a massive artillery, rocket, missile barage clears them paths towards their objectives.

Advance the armor, "Race to Baghdad style.

Whatever happens it needs to be a two pronged offensive so the orcs can't consolidate a defense. 

 

Melitopol imo

 

3 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-many-tanks-does-ukraine-have-why-more-now-79z65hrqx

Would love to read it. Can someone with a subscription post the article?

https://archive.ph/57cei

 

Spoiler

Heavy battle tanks have become the crucial weapon system for Kyiv as the fighting has ground to a stalemate war of attrition.

The priority for the Ukrainian forces is to break through Russian defences that have been built up in the Donbas region over the last few months and seize back territory occupied by Moscow’s invasion forces. For these two operations, they need advanced tanks.

Until now Nato has supplied Russian-made T-72s held by eastern European members of the alliance. While effective they have not given Ukraine the technological and operational edge they need to overcome Russia’s armoured forces.

The US Abrams M1A1 and M1A2 tanks and Germany’s Leopard 2s will provide that extra capability. But will they arrive in time to confront the anticipated Russian spring offensive in March or April?

The Abrams is the most potent tank in the world and has been battle-tested like no other armoured vehicle. Only nine Abrams have been destroyed in war and seven of those were in error in friendly-fire incidents. The other two were destroyed to avoid capture during the Iraq war in 2003.

The Abrams, however, is a complex piece of kit and is powered by gas turbines. It is also filled with highly sensitive equipment, which creates maintenance challenges. Even experienced Ukrainian tank operators will require months of training with a logistical back-up team on constant readiness.

The Pentagon has been reluctant to offer the Abrams, claiming that they would not be appropriate for Ukraine. In fact the fuel issue is not a huge obstacle. The Abrams can run on jet fuel, diesel and petrol and its 490-gallon tank means it can cover 265 miles without refuelling, a significant asset on the battlefield. It can also travel at 45mph.

However, the Leopard 2s are more likely to be ready for service before the Abrams, and the focus will be on getting these advanced tanks into the field as quickly as possible.

LIVE POLL

12 431 VOTES

Is the UK right to send more weapons to Ukraine?

 

Like the Abrams, it is a 55-tonne tank but has a longer range of about 310 miles and can reach speeds of 42mph. Both the American and German tanks have a 120mm smooth bore gun fitted with a fully digital fire control system, allowing accurate shell launches on the move.

There are at least 2,000 Leopard 2s in Europe so it is possible that Ukraine will eventually receive the 300 or so tanks it says it needs to make a significant difference on the battlefield, including the 14 Challenger 2s already pledged.

With so many tanks en route to Ukraine, the challenge will be to deliver them safely without being targeted by Russian bombers, drones and long-range missiles. Road and rail routes into Ukraine from Poland, Germany and Slovakia will be used. Until now Russian strikes have failed to have any impact on Nato’s weapons supply routes.

Abrams tanks are not going to be seen on the battlefield in Ukraine for a long time, possibly not even by the end of this year. But America’s decision to send them has provided the political cover the Berlin government needed before announcing the dispatch of Leopard 2s.

Tank supply

Leopard 2 inventories of European countries

In

service

In

store

On

order

Germany

321

200

Greece

353

Spain

327

Turkey

316

Poland

247

Finland

100

100

Switzerland

134

Sweden

120

Austria

56

Hungary

44

Norway

Denmark

44

Portugal

37

Slovakia

Czech Republic

Chart: The Times and The Sunday Times • Source: IISS

What are the advantages of the Challenger 2 and Leopard 2 tanks?

The Challenger 2 is protected by classified Dorchester armour, making it hard to destroy. The British Army claims that only one has ever been lost in battle, as a result of friendly fire in Iraq. The main advantage of the Leopard 2 is its sophisticated thermal optics, allowing the tank’s gunner and its commander to spot the enemy night and day. Both tanks have a 120mm gun, a standard size that makes it easier to supply Ukraine with ammunition.

How many tanks does Ukraine have left?

Ukraine started the war with 900 Soviet-made T-64s, T-72s and T-80s. Since then, it has captured as many as 500 extra Russian tanks, although a large number of these are thought to be in a state of disrepair. According to an independent analysis by Oryx, a Dutch consultancy, the Ukrainians have lost 450 tanks.

Germany agrees to send Leopard 2 battle tanks to Ukraine

Which tanks is Russia using in Ukraine and how many does it have left?

Russia has fielded T-62s, T-64s, T-72s, T-80s and T-90s in Ukraine. The Kremlin has lost 1,630 tanks since the beginning of the war, according to Oryx, which analyses battlefield videos and images to tally losses.

That is about half the number of operational tanks the Kremlin had in February last year: about 3,330, according to the Military Balance report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

Last week the Ministry of Defence warned that President Putin could accelerate the introduction of its T-14 “Armata” tanks, a new generation of Russian heavy armour. However, British intelligence assesses the tanks are not ready for conflict and it is thought their deployment would probably be used for propaganda purposes.

 

[blacklab 11942]

5 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

in all seriousness, I don’t think Black Lab has a problem with some discussion about China providing arms to the Ukraine/Russia conflict.  It’s essentially the same topic as - say - France providing arms to the Ukraine/Russia conflict.  

I am very sure he does not want this thread to discuss the myriad of political and economic problems in China - and other issues involving China that are not “did China give drones to Russia?” type stuff.

I really don’t think it’s that hard to figure out.

 

Correct. A tweet about china giving arms is fine. Not Hollywood giving his hot takes on Taiwan or asking stupid questions that have already been discussed is not

[Pato del Muerto 52551]

Should we give the A-10 to Taiwan??????

[Rimbo 26031]

14 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

I really don’t think it’s that hard to figure out.

 

Well.

It shouldn't be.

[Gatorubet 30278]

Quote

Should we give the A-10 to Taiwan??????

Edited February 26, 2023 by Gatorubet

[KYHorn 17132]

 

 

 

[blacklab 11942]

10 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Should we give the A-10 to Taiwan??????

other person on the list:

defiantlynothollywoodcolt 

[atomheartbevo 89771]

1 hour ago, Bevo said:

When did we start giving them weapons? You forgot that part.

I won't touch the Javelin aspect, since that's CR territory, but I think the bigger question is why didn't we apply the 2022-level of sanctions back in 2014/2015?  I think/know everybody was kind of befuddled that Russia would do what they did in 2014 (although Georgia out front 6 years or so prior to that shoulda told ya), but I wonder where things would be with Russia right now if they had just spent 8 years under far more serious sanctions.  We certainly passed sanctions, and continued to pass them, but they weren't this evil.

The training/ramping up their military, which we started in 2015, accelerated fairly fast (this is from 2017, and I like that they mention beefing up Ukraine's NCO corps, something Russia didn't do):

https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2017/10/ukraine-us-trains-army-west-fight-east/141577/

Quote

For more than two years, the U.S. military’s contingent of 300 or so soldiers have been quietly helping train an enormous allied military in western Ukraine. Meanwhile, Russian-backed separatists appear to be keeping pace some 800 miles to the east, showcasing entire parking lots full of new tanks and artillery just a 15-minute drive from the front lines.

“Every 55 days we have a new battalion come in and we train them,” said U.S. Army National Guard Capt. Kayla Christopher, spokesperson for the Joint Multinational Training Group-Ukraine, at Yavoriv Combat Training Center in western Ukraine. “And at the end of that 55-day period, we’ll do a field training exercise with that battalion.” The U.S. and partnered armies have trained seven battalions in the past roughly two years or so.

Quote

Since Crimea was annexed in 2014, the U.S. and partner militaries have helped grow Ukraine’s forces from just over 100,000 troops to nearly 250,000 today. Just since January, Capt. Christopher’s unit of 250 soldiers has added another 3,000 or so Ukrainian soldiers to Kiev’s ranks.

“But that's not the real end state,” she said. “Essentially, what we're trying to do is get them to the point where they are running their own combat training center,” like the U.S. Army’s National Training Center at Fort Irwin, Calif., or the Joint Readiness Training Center at Fort Polk, Louisiana.

Quote

The U.S. has also sent a variety of non-lethal military help to Ukraine — equipment like Humvees, medical supplies, bulletproof vests, and radars to track the hundreds of artillery shells that have fallen on the eastern Donetsk and Luhansk regions. Maybe Javelin anti-tank missiles, Defense Secretary Mattis said in August. But Christopher’s unit is far from the fighting. Their mission is “training the trainers ” and in particular, adding to Ukraine’s NCO corps — the stern disciplinarians who help ensure that units are fit and ready for combat.

 

[Neonmoon 38130]

So what’s the next move for Ukraine? Just hold Bakhmut? Seems like the last big move was taking back Kherson. 

[KYHorn 17132]

 

 

[SL Xpress 7517]

4 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

Washington does not get nearly enough credit for the campaign he waged, and the people he surrounded himself with.

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.

Spoiler

Britain's greatest military foes

UK

by 

Niall McCarthy,

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

Data Journalist

 

 

 

 

 

[686 3450]

That’s a lot of trucks lined up, maybe the UA has something cooking:

[SL Xpress 7517]

4 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

So what’s the next move for Ukraine? Just hold Bakhmut? Seems like the last big move was taking back Kherson. 

Well, this is just speculation, but the move right now is to train and form new brigades/divisions utilizing the western armor being provided, specifically the main battle tanks and modern infantry fighting vehicles. How long until they're sufficiently equipped and trained is classified. We'll never actually have a good handle on when that occurs, and it's highly subjective in any case. 

Then it becomes a matter of Ukraine being able to use these new formations to break through Russian defensive lines in a qualitative way that breaks the relative stalemate as it currently exists. There will be a lot at stake for both sides. All of us who basically amount to cheerleaders/stans for the Ukrainian side are hopeful at the prospective result, but you never know. I can't imagine they'll be able to field the kind of force they need before May, but that's simply a guess on my part. I'm sure there will be disinformation campaigns, so until the offensive begins and we see results, a lot of it will be hidden behind the fog of war. 

[BamaATL 16593]

3 minutes ago, 686 said:

That’s a lot of trucks lined up, maybe the UA has something cooking:
 

I saw this yesterday but the rumor was they were headed in the Kherson direction (that didn't make a lot of sense to me). But who knows.  

[BamaATL 16593]

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

by 

Niall McCarthy,

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

Data Journalist

 

 

 

 

 

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

[SL Xpress 7517]

3 minutes ago, 686 said:

That’s a lot of trucks lined up, maybe the UA has something cooking:
 

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. 

[BamaATL 16593]

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.  

[atomheartbevo 89771]

13 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

So what’s the next move for Ukraine? Just hold Bakhmut? Seems like the last big move was taking back Kherson. 

5 minutes ago, 686 said:

That’s a lot of trucks lined up, maybe the UA has something cooking:

Like SL Express said, train and equip, train and equip.

But if the Russians are truly lacking reserves (which the Ukrainians/NATO would know),  the Ukrainians can move troops around (because they have lots of vehicles made for that, unlike Russia and their Scooby Doo vans, and the Ukrainians have shorter distances to cover) and force the Russians to do so, knowing that it's much harder for them.  The Russians would have to move longer distances, avoid HIMARS range for any large troop/vehicle gatherings/convoys, and they also have fewer troops that they can afford to move around.  It would also put more wear and tear on already poorly-maintained equipment, and it would wear their soldiers out more (the cold, not having cover when they get somewhere, etc).

To put it in perspective, if the Russians were actually telling the truth and had 300,000 troops in Ukraine, that's less than 100,000 Honest-to-God Infantry that can actually seize, hold, or defend land (the rest are supporting them), and it could even be as low as 50,000-75,000.  If the Ukraines spooked them here and there and they had to move a few thousand around here and there, that causes Russia a lot of problems, and could even create a situation that Ukraine could exploit.

[SL Xpress 7517]

3 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

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

Hell, they could be empty for all I know. Thanks for the clarification. I wouldn't have been able to identify them without help, but it's obvious to anyone they don't have any kind of cannon, tracks, or heavy armor, so I knew they weren't MBTs/IFVs/APCs. 

I liked @atomheartbevo's explanation above. Even just the act of moving around troops is something Russia has to respond to. 

[atomheartbevo 89771]

19 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

by 

Niall McCarthy,

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

Data Journalist

 

 

 

 

That is nice.  Very. nice.  There's plenty of people who focus on his individual W/L record and not the overall picture, or don't appreciate his guerrilla tactics (or whatever you want to call them).

I'm still pissed they didn't follow up the John Adams series on HBO with a 1776 series.  David Morse was a great Washington.

[PTINS 3472]

36 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

by 

Niall McCarthy,

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

Data Journalist

 

 

 

 

 

Quote

“Nothing that will make an Englishman shit so quick as the sight of General Washington”

 

[BamaATL 16593]

Well shit, this ain't good

 

[Handcruser 2805]

Well shit, this ain't good
 

I’d ignore that.