(Thread IKs:
fatherboxx)
|
quote:the toilets and houses are fouled Sounds almost like the description of a 17th century mercenary army running around.
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2023 19:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 22:23 |
|
|
Dirt5o8 posted:Military demo doesn't have much crossover to civilian demo. Not in my experience anyway. I've never been EOD so I don't know about them. Military demo is made to be very easy and the math to calculate the amount of Boom you need is super simple. In Finnish army pioneers complete junior blaster's license, which allows them to work with smaller explosive sites. On civilian side the same course costs close to a thousand euros and takes 40 hours to complete, so it's something. Truck driver's license and military police are the most common forms of getting training in the army that counts for something in civilian life afaik. Mechanics, boat handlers, cooks etc. probably too, but gotta say I wouldn't hire a conscript cook if I had a restaurant 
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2023 20:00
|
|
|
The guys I knew in the local field engineering unit were quite proud of being sappers and knew they were in for a probably very exciting time if a shooting war in Europe started up. In the mean time they got to run around blowing poo poo up with C-4 on exercises, and sappers were clearly more elite than boring infantry, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2023 20:08
|
|
|
wrong thread
beer_war fucked around with this message at 20:22 on Jun 16, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2023 20:16
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:The guys I knew in the local field engineering unit were quite proud of being sappers and knew they were in for a probably very exciting time if a shooting war in Europe started up. In the mean time they got to run around blowing poo poo up with C-4 on exercises, and sappers were clearly more elite than boring infantry, etc. We weren't sappers but we still got basic training on plastic explosives so we could e.g. make abatis quickly by blowing up trees or penetrate frozen ground to dig trenches. I wouldn't have minded spending more time with those toys but I don't think I could grow a good beard. This is also the reason why I haven't become a conservative muslim btw.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2023 20:32
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:This is beyond ridiculous. Thats what happens when there is no Third Amendment heh
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2023 20:34
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:This is beyond ridiculous. Watch the people complaining get arrested for discrediting the Russian army.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2023 20:38
|
|
|
fatherboxx posted:Thats what happens when there is no Third Amendment heh 
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2023 20:44
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:Why does anyone do anything dangerous ever? Glory is a motivator for some, I suppose, but relatively few. External motivators only get people through the door the first time, by the way. Once you're in the poo poo, it's almost invariably the bonds between soldiers which keep you going. Some signal corps guy: All my gear is a flaring target observable from Mars but maybe I am in off-rotation when the airstrike hits us.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2023 21:10
|
|
|
A lot of really dangerous jobs in the army are very attractive because you can make a lot of money after discharge.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2023 21:37
|
|
|
Der Kyhe posted:Some signal corps guy: All my gear is a flaring target observable from Mars but maybe I am in off-rotation when the airstrike hits us. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2023 22:02
|
|
|
So if it was the US military that was doing these breaching operations in Ukraine instead of the Ukrainian military what would it look like? Would they be using a lot of those line charges (I forget the name, the ones that shoot a rope of explosives to clear mines)? Would they be using a crapload of those mine clearing tanks?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2023 22:17
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:So if it was the US military that was doing these breaching operations in Ukraine instead of the Ukrainian military what would it look like? Would they be using a lot of those line charges (I forget the name, the ones that shoot a rope of explosives to clear mines)? Would they be using a crapload of those mine clearing tanks? The biggest difference might be less the couple hours of actual breaching and more the corps and division-level shaping that takes place prior to the breach. Here's a basic (and kind of old) breach 101 video they used for instruction of the breach at the US maneuver center. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZ-sCT_maAQ
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2023 22:30
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:The biggest difference might be less the couple hours of actual breaching and more the corps and division-level shaping that takes place prior to the breach. This video is literally the standard the U.S. uses at its engineer school as an example of a textbook breach. The simulation was created based off an actual breach conducted in the 90's by an ABCT at the National Training Center. Some of our equipment has had some minor upgrades since then but it's essentially the same because no one wants to spend money upgrading engineer equipment when there's some sexy guns to develop.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2023 22:51
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:The biggest difference might be less the couple hours of actual breaching and more the corps and division-level shaping that takes place prior to the breach. Pro click, this really highlights a lot of what Ukraine is unable to use in today's breaching efforts. Ukraine has artillery, but no where near the amount of long and close range air support the US relies on. Also, the vid mentions using maximum amounts of smoke, and makes a note that this does cause friendly command and control problems, but to do it anyways. It's possible Ukraine is not employing that seeing as their army is a lot greener at all of this than the US is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2023 22:58
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:The biggest difference might be less the couple hours of actual breaching and more the corps and division-level shaping that takes place prior to the breach. Very interesting, but I did not expect the narrator to sound like a surfer bro
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2023 23:00
|
|
|
Eh, it's no "the missile knows where it is at all times."
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2023 23:16
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:The biggest difference might be less the couple hours of actual breaching and more the corps and division-level shaping that takes place prior to the breach. Is that H. Jon Benjamin doing voice over work for the video or am I having goon voice blindness?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2023 23:34
|
|
|
watching the video you can also see how easily things can go wrong. A single ATGM strike on a vehicle in the middle of the column means that anything forward of that vehicle can no longer retreat and anything behind it can no longer advance without going through the minefield. And that's pretty hard to prevent when you're talking about those helos with 10km range atgm. I believe US doctrine in that case is 'Have blown up that helicopter last week.' TheDeadlyShoe fucked around with this message at 01:51 on Jun 17, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2023 01:37
|
|
|
EasilyConfused posted:Very interesting, but I did not expect the narrator to sound like a surfer bro does have a solid hint of bill and ted's excellent breach
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2023 01:46
|
|
|
How does the ABV place the lane markers? Are there little automated arms that come out and stick the lane markers into the ground? edit - After some reading I see that it’s equipped with a Lane Marking System but I can’t find a description of how it works. Mr. Apollo fucked around with this message at 02:20 on Jun 17, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2023 02:17
|
|
|
Mr. Apollo posted:How does the ABV place the lane markers? Are there little automated arms that come out and stick the lane markers into the ground? They are doohickeys on the sides near the back that shoot the stakes in. It's pretty unreliable though depending on the terrain. That's why a squad of dismounts are tasked with doing the lane marking as well. Essentially it's a box that pneumatically drives the stakes in and it's fed from a hopper. But if the grounds hard or it hits a rock or the vehicle hits a bump or the winds too high or God hates you, it's going to fall over.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2023 02:35
|
|
|
Dirt5o8 posted:They are doohickeys on the sides near the back that shoot the stakes in. It's pretty unreliable though depending on the terrain. That's why a squad of dismounts are tasked with doing the lane marking as well. or if it's on the receiving end of heavy enemy fire?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2023 03:07
|
|
|
This offensive does beg the question, is it necessary right now? This war could take years to resolve, why not build up with western armament and aircraft to gain battlefield and air superiority, while relying on sanctions to continue to hobble the Russian economy and stifle the rebuild of the war machine, as it seems to be doing so effectively now, with a truce or withdrawal to stalemate in the meantime. I realize occupied Ukraine would suffer, and it's been suffering since large swathes of it were occupied originally. Why not build a superior western equipped and trained army and air force for a couple of years under truce, and then flex for withdrawal. It just seems like a lot of needless suffering when so much gain in the cold war was accomplished by playing the economic long game. I realize that the few times the west went to war (not entirely sure it's applicable to refer to Ukraine as the west) it was against a totally delusional dictator, and I doubt Ukraine would be probing if they didn't have the intel, probability and possibly help to make a breakthrough but again, the long game does not seem to be very much discussed as an option so far. Correct me if I am wrong, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2023 03:28
|
|
|
Aside from the point you raised about people in occupied territories suffering needlessly, you are also making a big assumption of the political will and production capability of the west to keep sending arms to Ukraine while otherwise frozen in a stalemate. Ukraine needs to show it can change the dynamic instead of everything tying in to a long term Russian victory. Plus, even if you made Ukraine take more time to stockpile weapons and mobilize its military, that is also more time for Russia to create even more defensive lines to fall back on and raise and train more troops to fill out their own ranks too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2023 03:43
|
|
|
Huggybear posted:This offensive does beg the question, is it necessary right now? This war could take years to resolve, why not build up with western armament and aircraft to gain battlefield and air superiority, while relying on sanctions to continue to hobble the Russian economy and stifle the rebuild of the war machine, as it seems to be doing so effectively now, with a truce or withdrawal to stalemate in the meantime. e.f.b. A couple factors: 1: There is a perception that momentum needs to be maintained. This one's hard to pin down as a specific thing but many of the bigwigs on Ukraine's side seem to think every day without a tangible victory is a day where popular opinion will shift more towards "What do we gain from this anyway?" And suddenly aid will dry up 2: Genocides are happening right now and every day Russia controls Ukrainian territory the more civilian deaths happen
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2023 03:46
|
|
|
Yes, I accept those realities. They are harsh. The possibility of the West to prove fickle if gains are not maintained seems unfounded, so I would appreciate elaboration on that. However, it seems evident Russia does not have the capacity to mount more of an ongoing attack or to commit further to any offensive than the Bakhmut insanity we have seen. I don't think it is politically untenable for Ukraine to tell the west that they will commit to a serious counter-offensive if the west can try to help gain air superiority and build a bigger, better army and armored fighting force, as long as the West maintains sanctions. I don't see how this affects the western nations supplying tools and enforcing sanctions. Everyone hates Russia and this can do nothing but help the current dictatorship topple. In WWII the Allies knew about the camps and the vicious and genocidal Nazi occupation for years, and built and practiced an effective and massive amphibious landing and invasion force with air and naval support for most of that time - and they almost lost even with the massive Soviet offensives in the east. This just seems to be a historical precedent as a key to victory. Not trying to be alarmist, I hope I am wrong and they break through using the tools and strategies they have now. Huggybear fucked around with this message at 04:40 on Jun 17, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2023 04:29
|
|
|
We're potentially a year away from Ukraine losing their biggest benefactor when the US 2024 elections roll around, I imagine that factors in.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2023 04:35
|
|
|
Huggybear posted:Yes, I accept those realities. They are harsh. The possibility of the West to prove fickle if gains are not maintained seems unfounded, so I would appreciate elaboration on that. Because if it seems like Ukraine is giving up as a truce would suggest, then aid is gone. Russia just has to wait a little bit then they can begin the war again because if you give Ukraine time to build up? You give Russia time to dig in and wipe out everyone they don't like in the territories, and then oh hey, they're not Ukrainian anymore! Only Russians left! The sanctions will also disappear the moment it seems like it's safe to start doing business again. And for the WWII comparison, you forget that the Allies did that during the war that they were involved in. Also I hope you realize just how much that sounds like "Those are sacrifices I am willing for them to make."
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2023 04:37
|
|
|
Huggybear posted:In WWII the Allies knew about the camps and the vicious and genocidal Nazi occupation for years, and built and practiced an effective amphibious landing and invasion force with air and naval support for most of that time. This just seems to be a historical precedent as a key to victory. This is a funny (not ha-ha funny) derail, since you are confusing fiction for history. quote:As early as May 1942, and again in June, the BBC reported the mass murder of Polish Jews by the Nazis. Although both US President, Franklin Roosevelt, and British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, warned the Germans that they would be held to account after the war, privately they agreed to prioritise and to turn their attention and efforts to winning the war. Therefore, all pleas to the Allies to destroy the death camp at Auschwitz-Birkenau were ignored. The Allies argued that not only would such an operation shift the focus away from winning the war, but it could provoke even worse treatment of the Jews. In June 1944 the Americans had aerial photographs of the Auschwitz complex. The Allies bombed a nearby factory in August, but the gas chambers, crematoria and train tracks used to transport Jewish civilians to their deaths were not targeted. But given your views on how the Ukrainian people might best ward off an actual genocide, this does not seem all too surprising.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2023 04:38
|
|
|
ranbo das posted:We're potentially a year away from Ukraine losing their biggest benefactor when the US 2024 elections roll around, I imagine that factors in. I honestly think this is the biggest factor. Does anyone really think another Trump administration or a Desantis administration is going to support Ukraine as much as the Biden administration? If not cut off support altogether? I'm sure Ukraine wants to regain as much territory as possible now in case a republican wins in 2024 and they are forced to negotiate an end to the war with Russia because the weapons flow is cut off.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2023 04:42
|
|
|
Huggybear posted:Yes, I accept those realities. They are harsh. The possibility of the West to prove fickle if gains are not maintained seems unfounded, so I would appreciate elaboration on that. There are political forces in pretty much every Western country that want to either decrease or remove aid to Ukraine, both civilian and military aid. There are countries in both EU and Nato who are, well, not clearly opposed to Russia’s invasion, or at least want use it for their own gain (Hungary and Turkey most notably). If things in Ukraine went into something like a one or two year stalemate, you’d hear a lot more calls for less support to Ukraine. For context, our nationalist populist party here in Sweden, with 20% support in voters, was pretty much pro-putin at the start of 2022 and only shut up about it when it got obvious how massive popular support for Ukraine was when Russia got stuck. They’d be very quick to return to their previous position when/if people got pessimistic of any fruitful outcome of the war. And there are similar parties in many, maybe most, countries in Europe. It’s not a completely empty threat to Ukraine. And as mentioned above there are several high ranking GOP people openly calling for a decrease in US support for Ukraine as well. That’s an even bigger threat than if one or a few European countries were to withdraw support. lilljonas fucked around with this message at 04:47 on Jun 17, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2023 04:44
|
|
|
Ukraine is also currently in the war they could make these similar decisions about, yes. Accept the attrition of an occupying force to develop a force to utterly destroy them rather than WWI style defend from trenches attrition style because no one has air superiority. Rappaport posted:This is a funny (not ha-ha funny) derail, since you are confusing fiction for history. Your response proves my statement that the Allies knew about the camps and did nothing about them, preferring instead to build a massive invasion force to defeat the nation that created them. Not sure you folks are reading me accurately.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2023 04:46
|
|
|
Huggybear posted:Your response proves my statement that the Allies knew about the camps and did nothing about them, preferring instead to build a massive invasion force to defeat the nation that created them. I apologize, I jumped the gun there, as it were. However, your major thesis still seems to lack the massive effort of the Soviet front, which killed a whole lot of Nazis and did not involve the sort of planning you allude to. Which is all to say, it seems bizarre to suggest that Ukraine should just sit back and watch a genocide happen, because you've seen a few war movies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2023 04:56
|
|
|
Huggybear posted:Ukraine is also currently in the war they could make these similar decisions about, yes. Accept the attrition of an occupying force to develop a force to utterly destroy them rather than WWI style defend from trenches attrition style because no one has air superiority. There is no guarantee that such a force would come and the Russians aren't really sitting on their laurels either. Most analysts on the Western side already doubt the Ukrainian ability to reclaim all its territory and basically I think everybody believes that it will come down to some sort of negotiated settlement years later. If Ukraine wants to achieve what they say publicly, they will need to vastly outperform Western expectations as they have done in the past. If Ukraine had a guarantee from the West for a fully modernized army capable of winning decisively in 2-3 years, waiting might be viable, but that's not really the current reality because A. there's no way to know how big that force would have to be and B. the Russians are going to be fortifying their positions in the meantime.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2023 06:57
|
|
|
All good points - one thing that nobody else seems to have brought up though is the state of the Ukrainian economy. Unsurprisingly having a big chunk of the country occupied, much of the rest under regular bombardment, and large swathes of your working age youngsters off being soldiers is not doing good things for the Ukrainian economy, and that creates internal domestic pressure to try and force an end to this as soon as possible. Western aid can help, but it's unlikely to cover everything and in any event it's unfortunately usually easier to persuade people to get excited about and politically support aid for cool fancy boom boom weapons than for boring economic aid. Plus, however much chuds might get antsy about giving Ukraine military aid if they're doing nothing, imagine how much complaining about welfare queens they'd do if there was economic aid propping up the economy while the Ukrainians did nothing. For that matter economics aside domestic pressure has to be remembered too - even if the US and friends were perfectly fine with sitting back and building up a proper stockpile (and there've been hints that US officials have been counseling the Ukrainains to do exactly that instead of going ahead with the offensive) Zelensky needs (or may feel he needs) to prove to the Ukrainians that there is a path forward to victory and that they're not sitting idle. High morale in the face of foreign invasion is one thing, but if it looks like the government is sitting on its hands and just watching people die day by day with no end in sight, that can sap morale over time. Of course having a big much heralded offensive get wrecked can sap morale even worse, but that's being a wartime leader for you - there's no real easy choices. Huggybear posted:In WWII the Allies knew about the camps and the vicious and genocidal Nazi occupation for years, and built and practiced an effective and massive amphibious landing and invasion force with air and naval support for most of that time - and they almost lost even with the massive Soviet offensives in the east. This just seems to be a historical precedent as a key to victory. I'm not sure this is really a good example of allied patience - Stalin was CONSTANTLY badgering the West to open up a "second front" to relieve pressure on Russia, and while US generals did broadly want to wait to prepare for the invasion of France, they eventually agreed, with some reluctance, to go on expeditions in North Africa and Sicily before then largely for political reasons to appease the British and the Russians. As Clausewitz said, war is a continuation of politics by other means. Wartime leaders do have to consider the political sensitivities of everyone involved - the home front, allied leaders, etc. - in order to be effective, and sometimes that means going ahead with things that might be considered militarily questionable or of secondary value.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2023 07:46
|
|
|
Tomn posted:I'm not sure this is really a good example of allied patience - Stalin was CONSTANTLY badgering the West to open up a "second front" to relieve pressure on Russia, and while US generals did broadly want to wait to prepare for the invasion of France, they eventually agreed, with some reluctance, to go on expeditions in North Africa and Sicily before then largely for political reasons to appease the British and the Russians. The US and UK strategic bombing campaigns also helped towards Stalin's generally reasonable demands for a Second Front as soon as possible. They did massive damage to Germany, killed a bunch of Germans, and put a lot of US and UK servicemen on the front lines; the 8th Air Force had a worse casualty rate than the USMC had invading islands in the Pacific. Stalin wasn't satisfied because it didn't divert German divisions from the Eastern Front, but the bombing campaign tied up a large portion of the Luftwaffe and a significant amount of resources for AA defenses - every Flak gun defending a city was one less heavy anti-tank gun on the Eastern Front.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2023 09:01
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:watching the video you can also see how easily things can go wrong. A single ATGM strike on a vehicle in the middle of the column means that anything forward of that vehicle can no longer retreat and anything behind it can no longer advance without going through the minefield. The procedure for that is "the vehicle behind the immobilized one rams into it and pushes it forwards". This is a thing that actually works and has been tested. Although it makes steering difficult, but hopefully if the vehicle in front starts to drift out of the cleared path, it will detonate the mines instead of the vehicle pushing it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2023 10:49
|
|
|
Huggybear posted:This offensive does beg the question, is it necessary right now? This war could take years to resolve, why not build up with western armament and aircraft to gain battlefield and air superiority, while relying on sanctions to continue to hobble the Russian economy and stifle the rebuild of the war machine, as it seems to be doing so effectively now, with a truce or withdrawal to stalemate in the meantime. While I'm not particularly coming down behind a POV here, I can see some arguments as to why it was necessary sooner rather than later: 1) The territory they intend to retake becomes harder and harder to retake the longer Russians are dug in and have time to build defenses. The Ukrainian Army may not be at its theoretical maximum strength, but the same is true of Russia. 2) For all the Western weapons, Ukraine are at longer-term manpower and material disadvantage. They are unlikely to reach a position, as you say, of having a superior army that they can use to strong-arm a favourable peace. I am in no position to comment on military strategy, but purely from a common sense perspective, striking earlier with the equipment advantage they have at present may be the only chance to get through a rapidly closing door. Western governments has historically (in this conflict) relented on providing new equipment and so on for specific purposes or in response to developments. 'Sit back and stockpile' is not going to land Ukraine with the same level of benefits when compared to 'it's needed to launch the fightback against Russia'. Even if that's stupid. 3) The longer the territory is de facto in the hands of Russia, the more difficult it becomes to reintegrate and the less leverage you have in negotiations to reacquire it. Few credible people believe Ukraine could ever be in a position to reclaim Crimea, for example, despite it having been indisputably their sovereign territory. 4) Western aid is a tap over which they have no control. Their economy is in worse shape by far than Russia's and needs to be propped up. Public opinion and funds are driven by the idea that Ukraine can deliver results and also other factors outside of their control (i.e. U.S. elections). Staying still and stockpiling will lose support/momentum/hope worldwide, and is also a huge gamble that the taps will be flowing in 2 years time just like they are now. My own opinion is that they would not be. Calls for peace from Western powers are very quiet right now specifically because there's a 'wait and see' consensus about their counter-offensive. Support for peace at a higher and higher cost (to Ukraine) will only get louder if the conflict is frozen and everyone is suffering economic hurt. 5) Probably the most important and not given significant enough consideration -- this is not like WWII and the Allied powers stockpiling to launch a hammer blow despite knowing about a pressing humanitarian concern. Because those were outside actors and the Holocaust was not widely known about at all. This is a defensive war on their own territory. The domestic pressure to do something will be immense. Rightly or wrongly, it's questionable that any political leadership whose strategy is to sit back for the long game would be tenable. It would be extremely fractious politically and extremely unpopular. I would put money down that if Zelensky said his plan was to wait for 2-3 years and build a modern army while Russia moves in en masse on their doorstep, he would be succeeded quite rapidly by someone with a more ambitious, proactive plan. Irrespective of whether it's a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2023 12:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 22:23 |
|
|
What a strange argument. You don't win wars by taking breaks to let the enemy recuperate from your strikes. You win only by hitting the enemy relentlessly and maintaining the initiative until they pass out or retreat. Especially so when it's a battle between nations of 43 million and 143 million people. And it's not like Russia has at any point ceased the attacks on Ukrainian people and infrastructure. Are they supposed to just sit and dodge missiles for years, all the while Russia fortifies Donbas?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2023 12:53
|
|