Русский корабль - иди нахуй

[Schulz2.0 28752]

 

[MillerEP 30339]

 

[Schulz2.0 28752]

 

[MillerEP 30339]

^

[Armybrat 40678]

1 hour ago, MissingInAction said:

I watched "Tears of the Valley" about the War of Yom Kippur. The Isrealis held back and destroyed over 100 soviet supplied tanks with 6-10 of our Patton tanks. 

They did have a strategic advantage being parked up on ramps which put them above the axis of the Syrian tank barrels, but still. 

I mark this as one of the first examples of how shitty soviet Era equipment is/was.

Don’t forget the Israelis’ kill ratio in air combat against the MIGs

[SHOOTER12 8787]

16 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

Did you just quote yourself in the post your quoting?

Echo,echo,echo 

Edited February 24, 2023 by SHOOTER12

[Brisketexan 104465]

8 minutes ago, MillerEP said:

 

^Don't buy it

Well, it's not the kind of thing that can be kept secret.  If Russia deploys Chinese drones, then within the first couple of days, a drone will be downed, examined, and it can be determined if it came from China.

China -- fuck around and find out.

[956 Worldwide 34314]

1 hour ago, RDCanecutter said:

But, but, but Zeihan wiggled his eyebrows around while acting like he was the first to think of things..?

Zeihan is not a Russia guy. He’s interesting, but if you want to look at what Russia is able to do on the battlefield, start with people like Michael Kofman. 
 

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/02/why-cant-russia-figure-out-how-to-win-in-ukraine.html 

[Armybrat 40678]

11 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Well, it's not the kind of thing that can be kept secret.  If Russia deploys Chinese drones, then within the first couple of days, a drone will be downed, examined, and it can be determined if it came from China.

China -- fuck around and find out.

Give Taiwan some nukes.

[Schulz2.0 28752]

 

[Rimbo 25752]

35 minutes ago, MillerEP said:

 

Great article.

Quote

Skeptics of NATO support for Kyiv focused on Ukrainian corruption (while conveniently ignoring the impact of corruption on Russian power).

Truth.

Quote

Many analysts overlooked the military advantages that democracies—even imperfect democracies—have over dictatorships.

Civ players know better.

Quote

Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who has argued that the nation should remain neutral between the West and Russia, was insisting last year that Kyiv make territorial concessions. Earlier this year, he expressed support for Ukrainian membership in NATO.

How is this guy still alive? Even the devil won't take him back!

[NeverMarryAStripper 21780]

4 hours ago, MissingInAction said:

How did I miss this one?

Off to Amazon I go. 

Thanks!

I think it's out of print

[MillerEP 30339]

^lol, that's a good one

[NAVY 6738]

1 hour ago, RDCanecutter said:

But, but, but Zeihan wiggled his eyebrows around while acting like he was the first to think of things..?

I just shot coffee out my nose. Thanks bud 

[SL Xpress 7504]

1 hour ago, MissingInAction said:

I watched "Tears of the Valley" about the War of Yom Kippur. The Isrealis held back and destroyed over 100 soviet supplied tanks with 6-10 of our Patton tanks. 

They did have a strategic advantage being parked up on ramps which put them above the axis of the Syrian tank barrels, but still. 

I mark this as one of the first examples of how shitty soviet Era equipment is/was.

Kind of. It's also Israelis, possibly the most motivated armed forces in the world, versus Islam Arab poorly trained armies who felt like their victory was ordained by Allah, where faith (and vast numerical superiority) was all that was necessary. 

From everything I've read, the Israelis were fielding British Centurion tanks, not Pattons, on the Golan Heights. Pattons were extensively utilized, but were featured against the Egyptians rather than the Syrians. 

Israeli tank crews on average fired two shells for every one fired by Syrian tanks. That wasn't because of the shitty Soviet equipment. Their crews were simply that much better. The Syrian miscues during that attack rival Russia in the Ukraine war for sheer stupidity. Up to and including calling off the attack right at the moment of victory. Syrians had the advantage of night equipment, which the Israelis did not. The Arabs simply didn't know how to use it to their advantage effectively.

That said, I have not watched the TV series Tears of the Valley. I'm now interested in doing so. 

There's a false narrative in this thread I've seen a few times that wants to equate Russian current capacity to wage war with the Soviet ability to do so. Yes, the Soviets had all kinds of issues, starting with a command economy. But they had a much larger population, and a much larger manufacturing base to draw from. They had the entire Warsaw Pact. They had much better mechanisms for transfer of power, and much better checks and balances following the death of Stalin. Not a strength of their political system, obviously, but much better than Russia has had historically, and certainly better than exists right now. 

The chief advantage Russia had over the Soviets was an integration into Western economies, which they've now thrown away. 

[atomheartbevo 89362]

19 minutes ago, MillerEP said:

^lol, that's a good one

Took me a second to realize that they meant corpses.

[Gatorubet 30064]

2 hours ago, MissingInAction said:

I watched "Tears of the Valley" about the War of Yom Kippur. The Isrealis held back and destroyed over 100 soviet supplied tanks with 6-10 of our Patton tanks. 

They did have a strategic advantage being parked up on ramps which put them above the axis of the Syrian tank barrels, but still. 

I mark this as one of the first examples of how shitty soviet Era equipment is/was.

Believe it or not, the Israelis had some super Sherman tanks with 105 mm barrels with heat ammunition replacing the 76 mm World War II cannons on the Shermans. They actually performed sufficiently to take out some of the Soviet union’s then modern tanks in the late 60s. When the smoke clears, it is simply always a function of can the cannon penetrate the armor in any tank battle - and more importantly, who sees who first. 

[Parliament 14112]

1 minute ago, Gatorubet said:

When the smoke clears, it is simply always a function of can the cannon penetrate the armor in any tank battle - and more importantly, who sees who first. 

So...can our Abrams/Leopard/Challenger tanks punch through T 72's?  

[The Dog 43771]

 

[InkaUtexas 25426]

1 minute ago, Parliament said:

So...can our Abrams/Leopard/Challenger tanks punch through T 72's?  

Yes, Proven multiple times in Iraq. 

[Parliament 14112]

I'm joking.

[atomheartbevo 89362]

5 minutes ago, Parliament said:

So...can our Abrams/Leopard/Challenger tanks punch through T 72's?  

Our Bradleys accidentally engaged some T-72s at close range and came out on top because they saw them first and had the superior weapons and initiative.

[Scheiss Meister 8398]

6 minutes ago, Parliament said:

So...can our Abrams/Leopard/Challenger tanks punch through T 72's?  

During Desert Storm an M-1 shot through a sand berm and knocked out a T-72.  If the old 105 mm gun could do that, the newer 120 mm damn sure will.

[Felix 598]

15 minutes ago, Parliament said:

So...can our Abrams/Leopard/Challenger tanks punch through T 72's?  

Like buttah!

[Felix 598]

8 minutes ago, Scheiss Meister said:

During Desert Storm an M-1 shot through a sand berm and knocked out a T-72.  If the old 105 mm gun could do that, the newer 120 mm damn sure will.

Pretty sure that was an M1A1 with 120mm main gun, but the 105mm on the M1 and M1IP could definitely kill them too.  Maybe not through a berm though.

[RDCanecutter 26239]

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

[BamaATL 16592]

3 minutes ago, RDCanecutter said:

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

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

[SL Xpress 7504]

7 minutes ago, Parliament said:

So...can our Abrams/Leopard/Challenger tanks punch through T 72's?  

It's not their armor I'm curious about. 

First, is Ukraine given enough numbers to make a huge difference? From military analysts I've read, they feel the UAF needs about 200 modern battle tanks to be truly effective. The only way we get to those numbers is if we're adding up Leopard 1s, Tawdry's, etc.. We shouldn't even be listing Abrams. There's no telling when they'll get to Ukraine, nor what role they'll actually play. There's only 14 Challenger II tanks being deployed. Good on the Brits for breaking the seal, but they're going to be used in some kind of specialist deployment. 

The Leopard 2A6's will be the best tanks Ukraine will field, and almost certainly the best tanks on the battlefield by far for either side. Then it becomes a matter of how do you utilize them effectively knowing you'll see losses of an asset that's proving very difficult to obtain, much less replace. Then you have a number of 2A4's, most recently Canada announced they're sending 4 more. I'm certain those too will be the best tanks on the battlefield other than the 2A6's, while also being slightly more expendable.

The key thing is, can they break through the Russian defensive lines? After what happened in Kharkiv, the Russian response seems to be to have several different layers of defense, so that a breakthrough can still be contained if prosecuted successfully by the Ukrainians. 

But if they break through Russian lines completely, anyone who has any confidence the Russians will be steadfast in their defense is kidding themselves. Certainly their most professional units will be. They have been in the past. They will in the future. But the Russian military in Ukraine now is not the same caliber of troops that entered into Ukraine a year ago. And we saw what happened in Kharkiv after the initial breakthroughs occurred. The Russian defense forces flat out ran. Completely abandoned their equipment to get to safety.

The other thing is the use of combined arms, so not just the tanks, but the new Marders, Bradleys, and Swedish CV90s, all of which are far superior to the BMP-2s, which are currently the most advanced infantry fighting vehicles on the battlefield. They're getting 50 Marders, 50 CV90s, and 109 Bradleys. If they can get a breakthrough with a team of tanks and IFVs, they can really wreck shop and encircle large groups of Russian soldiers who have low morale, poor training, poor equipment - and most important of all - poor communication. 

So it's just a matter of can Ukraine punch through Russian defensive lines or not. There's really only one way to find out. It's a ways out. I'm guessing May at the earliest. In the meantime Ukraine needs to keep successfully defending and attriting Russian forces while losing as little territory as possible. 

But the short answer is T-72s should stand very little chance against Leopard 2A6s in a tank on tank battle. Leopards have better firing range, better armor penetration, better armor, better speed, better maneuverability, better accuracy (most importantly on the move) with better thermals. But it won't be single tank on tank battles. So we'll see. 

 

[atomheartbevo 89362]

4 hours ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

You spent quite a few months convinced Putin didn't have the political capital to enact a mobilization. Looking back, how silly was that?

It wasn't silly at all - he did something extremely savvy that surprised me and let a lot of steam out of the opposition - he let around 700,000 Russians who didn't want to fight leave (and possibly up to 1 million, since there's a lot who left through unofficial, uncounted means).  I honestly thought he'd round up everybody that was eligible, rather than let them leave, and given the lines at borders that we saw, he could have easily captured those people. I don't know if he could pull off the mobilization if he hadn't done that since that could have been the core of large-scale protests, which means he doesn't have the political capital.  And recently he has ordered the crackdown of online comments that are negative towards him or the war and is continuing to round up people who oppose the war.

And how much political capital does he truly have, if he refuses to declare war, which is what he really needed to do last year to get the Russian economy focused solely on defeating on Ukraine?  Declaring war would allow him to openly do a truly massive roundup/conscription here in 2023, rather than this "stealth" bullshit of constantly rounding up people in smaller numbers ever since last fall (rather than singular massive waves).

Of course, if he declares war, then it's no longer a small conflict between family members, and he can no longer pretend that it's a defensive war, and his propagandists on state TV can no longer pretend that Russia had no choice. And I don't know that he could supply a massive conscription again, given how poorly the last massive one went, and that they are still having problems supplying them.

4 hours ago, Trey3216 said:

Don't really need political capital as an authoritarian whose internal enemies have all been eradicated.  

Yep, technically you don't need the political capital if you can round somebody up and jail them just for holding up a blank piece of paper or a sign that says "no war". But that also means that you are afraid of at least some of the population, and recently the Russian legislators upped the restrictions on protests/gatherings at his bequest.

Right now, even if the typical Russian citizen doesn't see it, Russia is being humiliated on the battlefield, in front of various embassies in Europe, in various meetings in Europe.  It's an interesting dynamic.

[The Dog 43771]

Leopards and Abrams are force multipliers and are more than a match for any of the trash Ivan throws out there. 

25 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

The other thing is the use of combined arms, so not just the tanks, but the new Marders, Bradleys, and Swedish CV90s, all of which are far superior to the BMP-2s, which are currently the most advanced infantry fighting vehicles on the battlefield. They're getting 50 Marders, 50 CV90s, and 109 Bradleys. If they can get a breakthrough with a team of tanks and IFVs, they can really wreck shop and encircle large groups of Russian soldiers who have low morale, poor training, poor equipment - and most important of all - poor communication. 

 

Everything I've read or watches says the same - that the IFVs we are sending will have the biggest impact.

Everyone wants to play with the new toys:

 

[MillerEP 30339]

 

[The Dog 43771]

 

[atomheartbevo 89362]

1 hour ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Zeihan is not a Russia guy. He’s interesting, but if you want to look at what Russia is able to do on the battlefield, start with people like Michael Kofman. 
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/02/why-cant-russia-figure-out-how-to-win-in-ukraine.html 

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

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

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

Edited February 24, 2023 by atomheartbevo

[JesusSweatDuck 17780]

If China starts sending lethal aid, we should move to force US companies to relocate production to other places than China.  Having factories in China should be viewed as supporting a terrorist organization.  Obviously, you have to give them time to move, but we should stop fucking around with it.  China is absolutely reliant on us, not the other way around.

[MillerEP 30339]

 

[BamaATL 16592]

1 minute ago, atomheartbevo said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[SL Xpress 7504]

Here's an awesome interview with an American nurse, Rebecca Machurowski, operating on the front lines in Ukraine. It also features Scott Kelly, the former astronaut and brother of Mark Kelly, the current senator from Arizona. He's done some fundraising trying to supply more ambulances to Ukraine, who he says loses 10 a week because they're targeted by the Russian military.

There's a part towards the tail end of the interview where the nurse makes an impassioned plea, wanting to be able to do or say something to show the world what the Ukrainians are going through to spark continued interest in providing help. I got a little teary eyed listening to her.

Oh, and definitely would.

 

[SL Xpress 7504]

14 minutes ago, JesusSweatDuck said:

China is absolutely reliant on us, not the other way around.

 

I don't agree with this. It's a symbiotic relationship on any number of levels. Not necessarily a healthy one, mind you. But it's without a doubt a two way relationship, not the one way relationship you seem to be suggesting.

The amount of pain that would be involved in disentangling from China would be incalculable. 

[SL Xpress 7504]

19 minutes ago, MillerEP said:

 

An updated tank coalition graphic should read 18 Leopard 2A6es from Germany, 3 2A6es from Portugal, and 10 2A5es from Sweden to give a full tank battalion of the most advanced battle tanks available to the Ukrainians. 

Also, Canada just announced another 4 2A4es, so 8 in total. And Poland just announced 60 more PT-91 Tawdry's. They still need to get there, but the country has to commit to it first. I'm really excited to see what Ukraine can do with this new armor, along with the Bradleys/Marders/CV90s. It will just take time.

[MillerEP 30339]

 

[atomheartbevo 89362]

Lots of this apparently happening at various capitols today.

 

[27-25 2040]

A few words from one of your favorite Ukraine supporters...

 

[atomheartbevo 89362]

For those asking about A-10s, this is what the SU-25s are having to do to stay off the radar.

 

[SHOOTER12 8787]

7 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

But we should also send those. And suicide bomber dolphins. And some angry sea bass.

"A delicious bass"?

[atomheartbevo 89362]

Russia interrupts moment of silence in memory of the Ukrainian victims, asking for a moment of silence for dead Russians.

Putin doesn't care about the dead Russians, not sure why a Russian diplomat would care.

 

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11667]

You don’t often have a propagandist say “we challenged the US.  It’s madness. Only had can save us now.”

 

 

[Brisketexan 104465]

11 minutes ago, 27-25 said:

A few words from one of your favorite Ukraine supporters...

 

Quoted for.....reasons.

 

[atomheartbevo 89362]

8 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

You don’t often have a propagandist say “we challenged the US.  It’s madness. Only had can save us now.”

When they start talking about hegemons, I start thinking Ender's Game.  Thanks Orson Scott Card!

[InkaUtexas 25426]

2 hours ago, Felix said:

Like buttah!

 

 

[MagicSoccerSpray 1725]

9 hours ago, BamaATL said:

The funny thing is, their principle tank engine designs are still based on models we sent them in the early 1940s, initially lead by one Walter Chrysler, who has in fact been dead for over 80 years now. 

 

Walter Christie

 

8 hours ago, texasdago said:

I've read Empire of the Summer Moon... I don't know that our treatment of the Comanches and other indian tribes (aka all indian tribes) provides the righteous "right side of history" example you think.

 

Read it again. There way no way aside from how it played out.