Jump to content

Русский корабль - иди нахуй


Eastwood

Recommended Posts

From a strategy perspective, how is Russian not owning the skies right now, at least over their own limited lines of advance?

They have enough air power to completely saturated the current front in a way that anything that could be perceived as a potential slowdown to thier advance could be bombed to oblivion.

Is this a case of being unwilling to accept that the losses of who they consider “Russian” civilians and property as collateral damage handcuffing thier operations or just stubborness being unwilling to commit to total combined tactics, or a harsh reminder of how difficult it is to own the battle field with out digital superiority.

It is very difficult to coordinate when someone is shutting down your communications and limiting your ability to identify friend and foe. I have a sneaking suspicion that someone unleashed one of the real bad toys from the tech black box and has severely impacted the comms and other tech systems in the current Russian devices.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Drool 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nivek said:

I think it is more of a tactical deployment issue.  Russian thought they could use armor without the lessons learned in WW1 and it seems they keep jerking it to the battle of Kursk instead of embracing change.    Armor has its place.   But it just another tool that has to be properly used to be effective.   It has its weakness just like everything else.  Their strategy seems about as sound as anchoring our aircraft carriers into dock and using them as airports.  

Armor with robust infantry support is worthless.  Israel reinforced that many times.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Laxtonto said:

From a strategy perspective, how is Russian not owning the skies right now, at least over their own limited lines of advance?

They have enough air power to completely saturated the current front in a way that anything that could be perceived as a potential slowdown to thier advance could be bombed to oblivion.

Is this a case of being unwilling to accept that the losses of who they consider “Russian” civilians and property as collateral damage handcuffing thier operations or just stubborness being unwilling to commit to total combined tactics, or a harsh reminder of how difficult it is to own the battle field with out digital superiority.

It is very difficult to coordinate when someone is shutting down your communications and limiting your ability to identify friend and foe. I have a sneaking suspicion that someone unleashed one of the real bad toys from the tech black box and has severely impacted the comms and other tech systems in the current Russian devices.

Seems their equipment, tactics, training and morale are all very bad.  Far worse than we could have imagined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Laxtonto said:

From a strategy perspective, how is Russian not owning the skies right now, at least over their own limited lines of advance?

Combined air/ground support is hard.  Communication and coordination takes years of training and I’m curious how well the Russians even are at this?  What’s the Russian equivalent of a fly boy TACP?

Edited by BabaYaga
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

Been debunked.  

Link?  I seem to recall this being reported by major media outlets last week.

ETA: Was reported earlier by The Telegraph.  Use of video from 2013 or so has called it into question per Snopes, but I've not seen anything that "debunks" the report.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/russia-mobile-crematoriums/

Edited by DDD Dad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Parliament said:

Seems their equipment, tactics, training and morale are all very bad.  Far worse than we could have imagined.

Even if all of that is true, the sheer size of the Russian Air Force and more specifically their bomber force should provide a hammer for anything within 50 miles of the border. 
 

Is the Russian missile  tech that out dated or is the willpower to employ it nonexistent? There is no logical reason one of the largest militaries in the world cannot control the skies 50 miles from thier border when the US has not deployed tactical air assets to stop them.
 

This should be an ugly brutal affair with Russia bombing to oblivion any obstacle close to hampering their advance and yet we see this instead? Maybe the myth of the Russian military might is true, but to me this seems like there is something else to this beyond a paper tiger and uninterested troops.

Im happy Ukraine is holding on and Russia is getting trounced, but something is not lining up. 

 

 

Edited by Laxtonto
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Armor with robust infantry support is worthless.  Israel reinforced that many times.  

 If I recall correctly, some of their advantage lay in their turret elevation/declination abilities which were superior, so their opponent on the high ground couldn't aim down.   but I could be way off here,  it was a long time ago.    

I am not, nor have I ever served or studied military tactics.  It should be apparent.  Our artillery guys could really help us out, as they probably studied armor tactics and counter tactics.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Parliament said:

Seems their equipment, tactics, training and morale are all very bad.  Far worse than we could have imagined.

/nerd post alert 

Russian military training has always been poor. It’s legacy from the Tsras. 

But Russia military doctrine is steadfast and is followed. They have a strict believe that in war you must mix and match techniques and ops. There’s a Russian term that translates roughly to “undeclared warfare” and that’s what they tend to do. It’s why it took the Russians ~5 years to fully capture Aleppo. 

The main problem for Russia is when intel is one step ahead of every action they take. And when that intel is being tweeted by Marco Rubio and shared elsewhere to anyone who wants to listen. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Nivek said:

 If I recall correctly, some of their advantage lay in their turret elevation/declination abilities which were superior, so their opponent on the high ground couldn't aim down.   but I could be way off here,  it was a long time ago.    

I am not, nor have I ever served or studied military tactics.  It should be apparent.  Our artillery guys could really help us out, as they probably studied armor tactics and counter tactics.  

That was their Merkava tank.   Even it is helpless without infantry support.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Ace of Aces said:

/nerd post alert 

Russian military training has always been poor. It’s legacy from the Tsras. 

But Russia military doctrine is steadfast and is followed. They have a strict believe that in war you must mix and match techniques and ops. There’s a Russian term that translates roughly to “undeclared warfare” and that’s what they tend to do. It’s why it took the Russians ~5 years to fully capture Aleppo. 

The main problem for Russia is when intel is one step ahead of every action they take. And when that intel is being tweeted by Marco Rubio and shared elsewhere to anyone who wants to listen. 

They still maintain a fundamental flaw of an inability to pivot in the face of a changing battlefield.  Layer o logistic concerns and they’re in trouble.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, GabrielsHorn said:

UEFA / FIFA are going to have to make a decision here soon, especially with Slovakia, Sweden and the Czechs all refusing to play them as well. 

FIFA: "So Vlad, buddy, normally we'd side with you, because...well...because the check always clears, but recent events have us concerned about that moving forward."

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, The Ace of Aces said:

/nerd post alert 

Russian military training has always been poor. It’s legacy from the Tsras. 

But Russia military doctrine is steadfast and is followed. They have a strict believe that in war you must mix and match techniques and ops. There’s a Russian term that translates roughly to “undeclared warfare” and that’s what they tend to do. It’s why it took the Russians ~5 years to fully capture Aleppo.

How much effort did they commit to that excursion?  I thought it was sort of a side distraction, whereas this is tantamount to a full push, hence we're all surprised at how feckless it's been

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Ace of Aces said:

That is Russian ideology. 

Sue to poor communication and coordination.   In WWII one of the most sought after things from the US were telephone wires.   They’ve always had this in Inability to coordinate their forces.  It’s baffling that this is still the case.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Nivek said:

HAHA.   Nice attempt at a deflection.   So how do you feel about those European women and their performance against your Russian buddy now?  

I’m sorry you didn’t think a picture was funny, I understand your outrage through your 4 posts attempting to get a reaction. 
 

Any insecurities you attach to a photo are your own. Have a nice Sunday. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't a 600KT warhead over Kiev emit enough radiation to get into the Dnieper River and into Russia's water table?  Nevermind the fallout would make the short trip in prevailing jetstream into Russian air?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, po elvis said:

It is annoying to people that want to be annoyed. The reason he is President is because of his acting.

Plus it's a hell of a lot harder to become a successful comedian than to get a degree in X Y or Z. You've got to be alpha-alpha to pull in a steady paycheck on a national show. You need a mind that can succeed creatively in a cutthroat world with no set path. Other than the death and explosions, war is probably pretty simple for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

They still maintain a fundamental flaw of an inability to pivot in the face of a changing battlefield.  Layer o logistic concerns and they’re in trouble.  

Results of many years of military advancement based on politics and loyalty over effectiveness and leadership?

Edited by pacman
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

How much effort did they commit to that excursion?  I thought it was sort of a side distraction, whereas this is tantamount to a full push, hence we're all surprised at how feckless it's been

Aleppo was probably a bad analogy for me to make as it had so many varying avenues of support and fighting it wasn’t an all Russian-led endeavor. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...