Русский корабль - иди нахуй

[Schulz2.0 28,951]

2 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

Is this news? I thought this was a known issue? I must have read this several dozen times when they were being donated.

I did read the article. Sounds like they were desperate for firepower, and so used them despite their terrible fit for the role. BTW, the article was written a couple of weeks ago.

One thing about those vaunted 6 Finnish engineering vehicles on the Leopard 2 chassis. The reason the Finnish donated them is because they didn't work during testing. The Finns said it was because of the rocky soil in Finland, but it may have been they just don't work period. 

The truth is the Ukrainians aren't ideally kitted out to fight this counter offensive, but they're doing it anyway. And, they're having successes. 

My biggest concern above all others is Zaluzhnyi talking about the lack of artillery shells in that recent Washington Post article. They're not getting F-16s anytime soon. Who knows when they'll get cluster munitions or ATAMCS. But for goodness sakes scrape together everything possible to get them artillery shells. Artillery shells and mobile air defense. Oh, and thank you thank you thank you to the Brits for supplying the Storm Shadows. Holy shit what a difference those have made. 

Yep, I believe it's that they tried to use them that way because they lack the number of tanks really needed for the offensive. They've basically been given a bunch of stuff cobbled together that may or may not actually suit what they need.

[Schulz2.0 28,951]

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-buy-25-more-f-35-stealth-jets-3-bln-deal-2023-07-02/

[RPM 26,318]

1 hour ago, MagicSoccerSpray said:

 

Why would I bother asking the Israelis? They never adopted or modified the Bradley.

I stand corrected. They turned 'em down flat.

[MagicSoccerSpray 1,732]

34 minutes ago, RPM said:

I stand corrected. They turned 'em down flat.

 

They didn't turn them down "flat", they went with converted tank chassis that better fit their predicted future urban battle needs. The Bradleys are great, combat proven, and near/at top of their class compared to similar Western platforms ie Warrior, CV90, Marder, etc.

[RPM 26,318]

4 minutes ago, MagicSoccerSpray said:

They didn't turn them down "flat", they went with converted tank chassis that better fit their predicted future urban battle needs.

So what you're saying is they rejected them outright.

[BamaATL 16,593]

Just one last thing on the initial production run of the Bradley to consider.  It cost us $25 billion for the Apollo moon program.  The GAO reports that the initial design and production cost $5.7 billion, which is misleading because the pentagon has a general development slush fund that was also tapped into for it.  So even if you took it at face value, the initial cost for 6k of these was one fifth the entire moon program (it was considerably more than that).  

 

 

[Rimbo 25,921]

 

 

[Rimbo 25,921]

geez, Twitter really is falling apart

[Dahobbs 17,534]

4 hours ago, RPM said:

Ask the Israelis why they had to redesign them before they would accept them. It will punch holes in your theory.

Israel redesigns everything for their specific requirements. 

Edited July 2, 2023 by Dahobbs

[Dahobbs 17,534]

2 hours ago, RPM said:

I stand corrected. They turned 'em down flat.

Israel has specific requirements based upon their war doctrine. It has nothing to do with the system being a bad system. Israel has modified the f-16, the f-35, the f-15, and literally every weapon system we have ever provided them. 

[RPM 26,318]

3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Israel has specific requirements based upon their war doctrine.

a/k/a shit's gotta work, yo.

[Dahobbs 17,534]

Just now, RPM said:

a/k/a shit's gotta work, yo.

Yeah, the f-15, the most successful fighter ever, is obviously a horrible aircraft because Israel heavily modified it. This is stupid.

[Schulz2.0 28,951]

Romania kicked out 40 diplomats/embassy workers from Russia.

https://www.rferl.org/a/romania-russian-diplomats-leave-rising-tensions/32485158.html

 

[RPM 26,318]

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Yeah, the f-15, the most successful fighter ever, is obviously a horrible aircraft because Israel heavily modified it. This is stupid.

Israel bought them, not BFVs. You're proving my point. F-15's work. They work real good, always have.

Edited July 2, 2023 by RPM

[Dahobbs 17,534]

1 minute ago, RPM said:

Israel bought them, not BFVs. You're proving my point. F-15's work. They work real good, always have.

You keeping flipping. Your original post was that modifying a weapon system means it is bad.

Israel has unique requirements. Not every weapon system is going to work for them. Plus, Israel wanted to build up their domestic manufacturing. Israel also rejected the Abrams. I guess that means it is a bad tank. Again, your argument is stupid. 

[achooloco 1,067]

9 hours ago, butthurt said:

I'm pretty sure that this is a reposted video but fuck it. 

 

well i'm a moron for a variety of reasons but today I learned they are pronounced HIGH-mars and VOGner as opposed to him-ars and wag-ner. 

[B00M 6,415]

The details of that encounter between the US and Wagner in 2018 are so fucking satisfying

[Parliament 14,256]

Yeah I watch it every time it's posted in this thread.

[Dahobbs 17,534]

3 minutes ago, achooloco said:

well i'm a moron for a variety of reasons but today I learned they are pronounced HIGH-mars and VOGner as opposed to him-ars and wag-ner. 

Yeah. Russian doesn't really have a 'w' sound. That's why it was always funny to me that Chekov in Star Trek pronounced all 'v's as 'w's (e.g., nuclear wessels). 

[RPM 26,318]

10 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

You keeping flipping. Your original post was that modifying a weapon system means it is bad.

No, I said people won't buy a shitty product.

But, if you throw enough money at it, you can turn finally a fast troop carrier into an IFV.

The Bradley worked against Saddam. He had 70's Soviet shit.

I wonder what we would have come up with if we had just designed 2 different vehicles.

[B00M 6,415]

17 minutes ago, RPM said:

The Bradley worked against Saddam. He had 70's Soviet shit.

Russian MoD: 

[Parliament 14,256]

Maybe we can all agree the Bradley was a sub standard, over priced machine in its early iterations. And it has largely redeemed itself since then?  Albeit with a bunch more money poured in, and against crappy opponents? 

[Gatorubet 30,219]

7 minutes ago, Parliament said:

Maybe we can all agree the Bradley was a sub standard, over priced machine in its early iterations. And it has largely redeemed itself since then?  Albeit with a bunch more money poured in, and against crappy opponents? 

[Rimbo 25,921]

 

[SL Xpress 7,513]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

Yeah. Russian doesn't really have a 'w' sound. That's why it was always funny to me that Chekov in Star Trek pronounced all 'v's as 'w's (e.g., nuclear wessels). 

Wagner is German, as in Richard Wagner, the famous composer. Not Russian. Not saying anything about Russian’s lack of a ‘w’ sound, but it’s not really the culprit in this case. 

[RPM 26,318]

1 hour ago, Parliament said:

Maybe we can all agree the Bradley was a sub standard, over priced machine in its early iterations. And it has largely redeemed itself since then?  Albeit with a bunch more money poured in, and against crappy opponents? 

I can't disagree with that assessment as long as we add TOW missiles, because that's the only thing that saves it's ass and you got 2 shots.

Edited July 2, 2023 by RPM

[Dahobbs 17,534]

12 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

Wagner is German, as in Richard Wagner, the famous composer. Not Russian. Not saying anything about Russian’s lack of a ‘w’ sound, but it’s not really the culprit in this case. 

I'm aware. Just providing a related fun fact. 

[BrickHorn 18,219]

2 hours ago, RPM said:

The Bradley worked against Saddam. He had 70's Soviet shit.

Not a worthy adversary.

[Nivek 16,923]

1 hour ago, Parliament said:

Maybe we can all agree the Bradley was a sub standard, over priced machine in its early iterations. And it has largely redeemed itself since then?  Albeit with a bunch more money poured in, and against crappy opponents? 

Seems to me that every piece of equipment goes through a field trial and every new piece to show up on the field takes years to successfully figure out how to properly implement it as part of the military assets.   The M16 and the Sherman M4 (particularly at Kasserine Pass), all needed some time to be modified or tactically adapted to be effective.    

 

 

[Scheiss Meister 8,407]

3 minutes ago, Nivek said:

Seems to me that every piece of equipment goes through a field trial and every new piece to show up on the field takes years to successfully figure out how to properly implement it as part of the military assets.   The M16 and the Sherman M4 (particularly at Kasserine Pass), all needed some time to be modified or tactically adapted to be effective.    

 

 

This.  As military systems become increasingly complex and new technologies are incorporated, it is almost impossible for new systems to be ready "out of the box".  The Bradley was particularly a victim of being expected to fill too many different roles.  Most of the critics expected it to essentially be a main battle tank that carried troops, and that is not what it was proposed to do. 

Even if the expectations for the Bradley had been kept to the basic premise of the system, there would still have been a period of maturation.  For example, as great as the F-15 is, we are flying and fighting C, D, and E models, not the original system.  The current F-18s are the E and F models, and significantly larger than the original models.  Systems inevitably mature and develop.  That doesn't make the original systems bad.

[Rimbo 25,921]

 

[Rimbo 25,921]

LOL

you did not you stupid bitch lol

[Rimbo 25,921]

"In honor of Falcon 9 successful launch. A Russian BTR-82 decided to go into the troposphere too."

 

[InkaUtexas 25,911]

3 hours ago, RPM said:

Israel bought them, not BFVs. You're proving my point. F-15's work. They work real good, always have.

So do Galil's. Loved mine. 

Even have a bottle opener on them if you get the one with the bipod. 

Damn, I want a Galil now. 

[Rimbo 25,921]

 

Edited July 2, 2023 by Rimbo

[Rimbo 25,921]

 

[SL Xpress 7,513]

18 minutes ago, Scheiss Meister said:

This.  As military systems become increasingly complex and new technologies are incorporated, it is almost impossible for new systems to be ready "out of the box".  The Bradley was particularly a victim of being expected to fill too many different roles.  Most of the critics expected it to essentially be a main battle tank that carried troops, and that is not what it was proposed to do. 

Even if the expectations for the Bradley had been kept to the basic premise of the system, there would still have been a period of maturation.  For example, as great as the F-15 is, we are flying and fighting C, D, and E models, not the original system.  The current F-18s are the E and F models, and significantly larger than the original models.  Systems inevitably mature and develop.  That doesn't make the original systems bad.

Air Force and Army just need to watch how the Navy does it. The Gerald Ford has been a piece of cake. Seamless development and deployment schedule. Seamless, I say. 

[956 Worldwide 34,705]

3 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

Yeah. Russian doesn't really have a 'w' sound. That's why it was always funny to me that Chekov in Star Trek pronounced all 'v's as 'w's (e.g., nuclear wessels). 

I hear that happen fairly frequently with native Russian speakers. They aren’t used to the “w” sound and practice a lot and get reminded to use it. And then they end up over correcting and putting it where it doesn’t belong.

The “w” is not a super common sound worldwide. 

[Captainant 27,656]

48 minutes ago, Nivek said:

Seems to me that every piece of equipment goes through a field trial and every new piece to show up on the field takes years to successfully figure out how to properly implement it as part of the military assets.   The M16 and the Sherman M4 (particularly at Kasserine Pass), all needed some time to be modified or tactically adapted to be effective.    

 

 

Hell, the P51 mustang was not a great plane for it's first few years of life until the right engine got installed

[The Dog 44,020]

 

[Viper 12,109]

8 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

Air Force and Army just need to watch how the Navy does it. The Gerald Ford has been a piece of cake. Seamless development and deployment schedule. Seamless, I say. 

Probably because there was no math

[SL Xpress 7,513]

2 minutes ago, The Dog said:

 

There was a lot of Darwinism at work there. The person doing the hammering with the shell. The person in the background watching. The person doing the filming.

And then someone had to grab the phone out of the remains of those three and then upload it for views. What a time to be alive. Unlike those guys.

[Rimbo 25,921]

8 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

The “w” is not a super common sound worldwide. 

Counterpoint: It's in the two most commonly spoken languages in the world, English and Mandarin, making it a very super common sound.

[Gatorubet 30,219]

23 minutes ago, Nivek said:

Seems to me that every piece of equipment goes through a field trial and every new piece to show up on the field takes years to successfully figure out how to properly implement it as part of the military assets.   The M16 and the Sherman M4 (particularly at Kasserine Pass), all needed some time to be modified or tactically adapted to be effective.    

 

 

The Kasserine pass debacle can be attributed mostly to bad leadership and tactical strategy.  The fact that some idiots drove a much smaller number of Shermans straight into the face of German 88 guns and tigers (with the latter entrenched and notified by air in advance the allies were coming) who could blast them from long distance in the flat desert terrain was pure, almost suicidal stupidity.

I will grant you that they did learn the need for better ammo storage, and the so-called “wet storage“ solution practically eliminated the problem of tanks brewing up.  And to your point about modifications, the first Shermans did not have gun sights with magnification, something the Germans had that helped them in their long distance accuracy. 

It has always annoyed me that Sherman tank ammunition had been invented that could have dramatically increased the kill power of the 76 mm cannon, but US ordinance decided not  to make those vastly improved anti-armor shells available to the tankers who were fighting.  

Months before the war was over, they finally delivered a limited amount of the tungsten armor piercing ammunition to take crews, generally giving them one shell a month to each tank. That improved AP ammo could punch a hole in a panther’ mantlet at 1000 yards. Yet for most of the war Shermans were denied the ammo that would have greatly increased their ability to take out German armor. Some bureaucrat making a decision 

And again to your point about modifications, one issue was that Shermans at Kasserine had a too-short 75 mm cannon - which drastically reduced velocity at distance.  So they went with the 76 mm cannon, which arrived in late 44.  Once again, the idiots in ordinance decided the longer barrel might be a problem if the tank went down hill, and lopped 15 inches off the new longer barrel, again degrading it’s antitank performance.    The picture below shows the length of the original 76 barrel compared to the 75, the white line being the end of the 75 barrel. 

 

Still, even with a too-short barrel and shitty ammo, you simply do not drive toward entrenched 88s without cover of any kind.  Especially when they knew you were coming, with gun ranges well sighted in, and expect to have a pleasant outcome. 

Stupidity in tactics will almost always result in disaster. 

[Gatorubet 30,219]

4 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Stupidity in tactics will almost always result in disaster. 

Like using AMX-10s in frontline assaults. 

[Sawbonz 27,548]

8 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

The Kasserine pass debacle can be attributed mostly to bad leadership and tactical strategy.  The fact that some idiots drove a much smaller number of Shermans straight into the face of German 88 guns and tigers (with the latter entrenched and notified by air in advance the allies were coming) who could blast them from long distance in the flat desert terrain was pure, almost suicidal stupidity

So Fredendall didn’t read Rommel’s book?

[KYHorn 17,041]

 

 

Despite the encouraging statements by Russian officials, the Antonovsky Bridge foothold is causing a very palpable concern among the Russians. All day yesterday they discussed the footage of Russian soldiers ending up under a heavy barrage while attempting to moor on the Dnieper in a small boat. This was followed by mass calls to find boats all across Russia and bring them in. 

Today, even Girkin who previously dismissed the perspectives of such a foothold, came out with a very long post saying Russians are unable to "dislodge" the Ukrainian defence forces (full post here t.me/strelkovii/5847, here t.me/strelkovii/5848 and here t.me/strelkovii/5849).

[KYHorn 17,041]

 

[KYHorn 17,041]

1 hour ago, Rimbo said:

 

 

[MagicSoccerSpray 1,732]

6 hours ago, RPM said:

So what you're saying is they rejected them outright.

 

Obtuse