Header

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Invasion of Ukraine by Russia and War

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Cold View Post
    They will be used like this: see that town in Ukraine that I just wiped out, that’s going to be Berlin or London unless you back off. And there is no obvious response to that.
    Other than: see those vids online of the final minutes of Bin Laden, Saddam, Gaddafi .. that’s you, that is. Apparently he’s been obsessing about this kind of thing too.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Ming View Post
      The Russians have said they won't use one unless Russia is in danger. They might interpret Russia as including Crimea or Donbass though.
      Didn’t that think tank paper you posted go into some detail about his radicalisation of the Russian population, telling them NATO is waging war on them and basically softening them up for the long aftermath of what they will trust him to do on their behalf, in response.

      I haven’t watched Dr Strangelove in years, might give it a go this weekend.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Boris View Post
        Are howitzers "smart" these days or are they like old school artillary?
        Well I am glad you asked
        Its not just a matter of smart ammunition.

        Traditionally, artillery used to be, you'd throw up a stick in the horizon (say 50m out) and then while looking through the sights of the gun, put up a second stick halfway between the gun at the first one (say 25m) now you have a straight line. you would then use a compass to find the angle between the two sticks (say its 135 degrees) and the angle displayed in the gun sight (say 20 degrees) then 135+20 = 155, your gun is pointing at 155 degrees. You then consult a map, find where you are, and where the rounds need to land, find the relevant distance between the two, the compass orientation and input your type of round (your ammunition) and the distance into a gun computer (or even: just consult a paper table!) , and it tells you the angle you need to set the gun.
        BOOM! - one round is flying towards the target. (Its a bit more complicated than that, as the gun sight and gun move independently, and you need to align the two against your know etc. etc. but that is the basics)
        Now then: what your computer might not have asked you is: the temperature, the wind, the orientation of the gun, do you want to fire at low or high angle, how many rounds you have recently fired, how old is the gun barrel etc. etc.
        So that first round: it landed "somewhere".
        This is where your spotter comes in, and radios: "minus 1, plus 2" so now you know your round landed, say, 50m too far south, and 10m too far west. (there is short hand for this called forks or other such slang) So you make adjustments for that, and fire the second round.
        BOOM! - During all this time, only one of your guns is firing. The others (which must be in the same location) are following the same adjustments as the first one however, so that they are theoretically 100% parallel.
        Once the spotter is happy with your rounds landing where they are supposed to, he will radio "zero" at which point you would know your gun (and all the other guns you have) are pointing the the correct place, and you would give your command to fire all of them.
        Boom, boom boom.
        This is where the phrase "they got a zero!!!" shouted in so many American movies comes from.

        You can see how this is in-efficient.
        For each round that hits, the enemy knows it is about to be bombarded. that allows him to move away before your rounds land on top of him, use artillery spotting radar to locate your guns and shoot back at them, etc. etc.
        This is the way the guns were laid from WWI to the 1970s. And still are for small caliber weapons like mortars etc.

        Making artillery smart, takes away a lot of that. With super-smart computers, the computer knows how old the gun barrel is, its compass orientation (because the rotation of the earth matters), how many rounds you have fired (warm barrels fire differently) etc. etc. and so can calculate of this on the fly, and what is more: send all this information further.
        So this means: your first gun can fire, move position while the first round is in the air (because the computer would know where the gun was, and where it is now) and when the first round has landed, all the calculations and corrections from the spotter are directly sent to all the other guns (that could well be different locations, and no longer have to be next to each other) fire as well.
        Boom, boom boom. etc.
        Then, all your guns can move again (while the first round is in the air) to a new position, and fire again, and again, and again.

        GPS ammunition is of course "better" in that you just put the parameters into the round, and it finds out how to fly on its own, but the facts are, these rounds are expensive. (The same with laser guided ammo)
        If you can take away the costs of the rounds and upgrade the guns/computers so much the better.

        ---

        On the use of artillery vs. air power:
        Well, this is one of the main lessons of the 2014 war. You might not have air superiority over the battlefield, AND even if you do, finding and destroying artillery is still complicated.
        You have to FIND the guns before you can destroy them. That means having the aircraft/drone in the air looking for the guns, hitting them etc. You have a dozen aircraft/drones, but the enemy has multiples of that in artillery pieces.
        Big guns and MLRS are not as much back, as they have never left.
        "This is a non-contact sport but then so is ice hockey" - Roberto Giordanelli on Irish FIAT Punto racing but applies to all Irish racing..
        "Tailgaters have small dicks" - Me

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Ming View Post
          These bad boys are now being used by the Ukrainians:



          M270 MLRS as in use in the US army https://twitter.com/TrentTelenko/sta...2QoUF9gjN2TSiA

          If the Ukrainians get enough of this sort of stuff into the field it will be very hard for the Russians to even keep what they have.


          This is on the way (US Defence Dept announcement) - no wonder the Russians are threatening an apocalypse:

          https://twitter.com/DeptofDefense/st...2QoUF9gjN2TSiA



          I don't want to question you Ming, but I am not that sure about the M270 being sent to Ukraine.
          If they were, it would be huge (military) news. Then the Russians might as well pack up and go home. But I have not heard it repeated anywhere else.
          "This is a non-contact sport but then so is ice hockey" - Roberto Giordanelli on Irish FIAT Punto racing but applies to all Irish racing..
          "Tailgaters have small dicks" - Me

          Comment


          • As far back as the 1950s, it had been generally concluded by the sort of people who game out the end of the world, that there was no way to use any type of nuclear weapons, be it tactical or strategic, without an immediate and catastrophic escalation to nuclear war. This was in no small part due to the invention of the thermonuclear hydrogen bomb, or "Super" as it was referred to then. The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were "crude" fission devices, i.e. split atoms to release the energy needed. Thermonuclear devices are fusion devices. They smash atoms together to create larger atoms. This is the same way stars make energy. Thermonuclear devices use fission devices as primers to generate the initial energy required to kick-start the thermonuclear reaction. So modern nuclear weapons use old school atomic bombs as starter motors for the main event. Such is their fury. Their only purpose is to kill cities. And if you use one to kill an opponent's city, the only reasonable response is that your opponent kills one of your cities. Then you go on trading cities until you run out of bombs or cities. Nuclear war Playbooks from back then had cities like Moscow and New York ear-marked for 100 nuclear bombs each at the onset of one these city-trading wars. The beginnings of what would become MAD policy, and all that.

            Tactical nukes have no real agreed definition, but generally considered “lower yield” devices as Ming pointed out (Nagasaki/Hiroshimas are now considered “low yield” for reference though). They were originally invisioned as ways to target old school massed military arrangements on big open grounds, or as ways to neutralise heavily fortified military bunker facilities, e.g. Cheyenne mountain. However, their value added was always considered less than the risk they brought of losing the moral high-ground to your opponent and giving them the political and moral impetus (if not necessity) to retaliate with a bigger "tactical" weapon, and so on until you're trading cities (see above).

            So assuming rational actors, tactical nukes would seem off the menu. Is Putin rational? I don’t know. But it’s never just one man in these situations no matter how much we like to imagine simple super villians. He would need to convince a lot of powerful and self-serving people around him that Russia is best served by the ending of modern civilisation. I don't think the sort of people that spend $500m on yachts for themselves seem like the types to sacrifice themselves to fulfil the fantasies of others. Doesn't make me any less anxious about the whole situation though...the c*nts seem to be having no problem destroying cities and murdering its people with conventional weapons.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by hi-rev View Post

              I don't want to question you Ming, but I am not that sure about the M270 being sent to Ukraine.
              If they were, it would be huge (military) news. Then the Russians might as well pack up and go home. But I have not heard it repeated anywhere else.
              Thanks for the detail on artillery, I certainly glossed over that.

              On the M270, here is another source. However, it does say they aren't sure which system is being sent, the M270 or the M142 HIMARS (essentially a lighter version). With targeting info from the US satellite network and communications via Starlink, either is a game changer I think.

              https://avia-pro.net/news/na-ukrainu...lshoy-dalnosti

              Of course this might all be hot air given the pro Russian propaganda slant of this site.

              Another one:

              https://en.defence-ua.com/weapon_and...hint-2705.html
              sigpichttps://mingshitters.wordpress.com/

              Comment


              • I remember sitting in an mlrs launcher when I was a kid that belonged to the British Army. The benefit of artillery is in how it's used. The so called shoot and scoot tactics. So being able to accurate with your first few rounds and then moving quickly before the enemy can use counter fire on your position.
                The mlrs can fire all kinds of smart, precision guide munitions. It's also worth noting the Russians have there own version of the mlrs in the Tornado launcher (or the older smerch). They use those to launch the big thermobaric barrages seen on Twitter.


                Also wrt to tactical nukes, Cheyenne mountain was designed to withstand a near direct hit from the Soviets largest nukes. Battlefield tactical nukes are designed to take out a croke park sized target/area.

                ​​​​​​Despite all the rhetoric are they mad enough to use one? Maybe if they start losing ground and see Russian sovereign territory being taken or attacked. That would likely include Crimea. Although as said nukes are pretty much game over for everyone weapons.

                There was a brilliant HBO movie years ago which despite the sometimes ropey acting and effects was about a nuclear first strike and the response. It's called By the dawn's early light and is available on YouTube.

                Comment


                • On one hand we have Russian media stating WWIII has already begun, and then in the same breath they will say Russia is the protector of World peace. In that same breath, they threaten that anyone interfering with their self proclaimed world war will suffer retaliation. What about that is peaceful?

                  Also Putins claims of lightening fast counter measures. Surely there is vast amounts of intel on where such missiles are located, and I'd imagine such sites are being monitored to some degree for activity?

                  Whatever sort of capabilities sonic missiles have, they don't instantly go from sitting idle in a silo to travelling at speeds faster than a radar can pick them up. With that said, I'd imagine there are some sort of measures in place if such a launch was to happen.

                  At this point, Putin has threatened immediate repercussions if the west interferes, and yet the west has been interfering a lot. While it may be indirect, it's definitely not a Russia V Ukraine situation by any stretch of the imagination. IMO, this is making Putin look more like the boy who cried wolf than a world leader with enough conviction to follow through with threats of retaliation.

                  Maybe his bluff has well and truly been called, or he would have retaliated by now? Maybe the powers that be have enough intel to know Putins threats are just hot air, and they know there won't be any escalation and can just supply Ukraine all day long with weapons and training.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by injeejay View Post

                    Tactical nukes have no real agreed definition, but generally considered “lower yield” devices as Ming pointed out (Nagasaki/Hiroshimas are now considered “low yield” for reference though). They were originally invisioned as ways to target old school massed military arrangements on big open grounds, or as ways to neutralise heavily fortified military bunker facilities, e.g. Cheyenne mountain. However, their value added was always considered less than the risk they brought of losing the moral high-ground to your opponent and giving them the political and moral impetus (if not necessity) to retaliate with a bigger "tactical" weapon, and so on until you're trading cities (see above).
                    The argument is that there is no such thing as a tactical nuke - deployment of any nuclear device is a strategic decision, which everybody involved knows full well immediately escalates things entirely out of the local military arena into a global sit-ye-ayshun.

                    The point you make about the long history of nuclear wargaming is very valid - pretty clear that whether we choose to speculate or not on where Putin might go with his nukes, there are a very large number of professionals in the field who have been doing so with a view to designing the appropriate response for some time now.

                    Comment


                    • Putin just needs to string it along a bit more. Once the Republicans retake the House, and later Trump regains the presidency Ukraine is toast. Rand Paul was spouting sure Georgia and Ukraine are all Russia anyway just this week.

                      With them lads in power, the Ukrainian situation will be like Jan 6th, just a few news cycles away from being a mere kerfuffle, nothing to be exercised about. Move along now, nothing to see here. Of course the sanctions will be lifted and the rebuilding contracts will be 50/50 split between US and Russian fatcats.
                      Last edited by jdf; 29-04-2022, 03:45 PM.

                      Comment


                      • I dont quite "get" the Russian mentality, of the soldiers or the ordinary citizen:

                        "Those Ukrainians are Nazi's" - But we wont let you demonstrate, we crush and kill political opponents, we suppress free speech, ban outside media, we kill other nations women and children in an unprovoked attack. Oh and their leader is jewish.

                        "this is just a special operation, it will only take a few days" - 65 days later - We've lost 2 ships, 1,000 tanks, somewhere between 10-20000 men, a hundred aircraft, been driven from the capital and the Ukraine is even hitting inside our borders.

                        "We are the protectors of peace" - We've invaded another country and if anyone gets in the way, we might go to Nuclear war with them., even though its not war, just a special operation.

                        Do they lack critical thinking? It cant be that hard to understand that what you are being told doesn't make much sense. They were told the West was evil for 100 years, but for the last 20, Russians (at least middle class and upper) can see either through travel or media that the West is not acting aggressively towards it, except for what their leader says.
                        Last edited by jf_cole; 29-04-2022, 04:01 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by jf_cole View Post
                          They were told the West was evil for 100 years, but for the last 20, Russians (at least middle class and upper) can see either through travel or media that the West is not acting aggressively towards it, except for what their leader says.
                          I'm not an apologist for Putler but he does have a point about the encroachment of NATO and NATO bases all around Russia. Compare the Warsaw Pact v NATO 1989 map




                          and Russia v NATO map 2022


                          sigpichttps://mingshitters.wordpress.com/

                          Comment


                          • Russia claiming to have used submarine launched missiles for the first time in this conflict..

                            https://www.reuters.com/world/europe...ry-2022-04-29/

                            Russian submarine strikes Ukraine with cruise missiles, defence ministry says


                            Reuters






                            April 29 (Reuters) - Russia used a diesel submarine in the Black Sea to strike Ukrainian military targets with Kalibr cruise missiles, the first time Moscow has announced the use of its submarine fleet to hit its former Soviet neighbour.

                            The Russian defence ministry released a video showing a volley of Kalibr missiles emerging from the sea and soaring off into the horizon - to what the ministry said were Ukrainian military targets.

                            This is the first time Russia's military has reported using submarine strikes against Ukrainian targets, Interfax news agency reported on Friday.

                            Comment


                            • Yeah it just doesn't make much sense really does it.

                              I can only assume there is some discontent among a lot of Russians,the younger population that might have a clue as to how to view western websites etc. must have a pretty good idea as to what's actually happening.

                              I read somewhere that for a lot of Russians,the older generations especially,its easier for them to believe that Russia is only doing right.Its beyond their comprehension that Russia could carry out such horrors.

                              The fear of being locked up for years and the absolute brutality of the Russian police at quashing any hint of protest must also be a pretty big deterrent at stopping any form of protest from really taking off.

                              I dont know if anyone watched that film about Alexei Navalny a few nights ago on BBC2.
                              A really brilliant film,it really showed what he had to deal with,trying to lift the lid even a little bit as to what Putin and his supporters were up to.
                              Of course he nearly paid the ultimate price,several times.
                              He was able to get a lot of supporters out onto the streets,you would have to say that support is still there but obviously too fearful of the repercussions should they raise their heads now.

                              Comment


                              • Absolutely, In the early 90's following the fall of the Soviet Union, it was agreed that Nato would not expand further east, and yet, it did. Repeatedly.

                                But what has the ordinary Russian on the street got to fear from an organization designed for protection and has rarely ever got involved in conflict (except for a few circumstances like during the break up of Yugoslavia)? Nato wouldnt dare attack Russia, so whats the fear, except the paranoia of their leader? And hasnt being a member of NATO just become super handy, for when your "peaceful" neighbour might want to invade because it doesnt like the look of whats going on, on its side of the fence.

                                I know you are just playing devils advocate and all, but to me its just very hard to understand the mentality of it all.

                                And is there no irony to the fact that after WWII Russia "gave" Eastern Europe communism and forced it down their throat until the soviet empire collapsed - But the Ukraine, an independent country cant govern as it sees fit?

                                I really thought that the soldiers and ordinary Russians would have at least attempted a coup by now having seen through this "special operation" to "de-nazify" the Ukraine. But the longer it goes on, the more complicit they are in this. And they wonder then why Russophobia is spreading. At the beginning I felt very sorry for the ordinary Russian citizen, now, not so much. And the goshi1tes around the western world supporting this, only makes it even more horrific as they are not stuck behind the curtain and can see if they want whats going on.

                                Comment

                                Bottom of thread

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X