(Thread IKs:
fatherboxx)
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Yeah, -10 degrees is really bad. Pretty much every other CIWS system out there has at least -13 degrees, with actual modern ones being -25 degrees. Russian CIWS has -25 degree depression as well, it just isn't installed on these ships, they only have a single mount of DP cannons and some rockets / missiles.
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2023 17:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 10:22 |
|
|
Some news I've found not mentioned here from the last days: Die Zeit, Liveticker to the war Some interesting bits from the liveticker: -Mychajlo Podoljak from the Ukrainian government boasts that the new sea drones will "end Russian presence in the Black Sea" -Bulgaria has prepared a treaty with Ukraine to send military aid, including 100 old Soviet-IFVs, Ukraine just need to sign it now. (I'm not sure actually if this hasn't come up in the thread so far, I'm just adding it in case.) And then there was this: Bundeswehr-officer talks about the war Oberstleutnant Michael Karl (that would be the equivalent of a lieutenant-colonel in Anglo World) was interviewed by German TV channel ZDF (literally just "Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen" or "Second German TV-Channel"  ) and gave his opinion on how the counter offensive is going.According to the interview, he's first repeating up the known thread-points about what Russia and Ukraine are doing good or bad, with some additional info like that the disposed Russian General Ivan Popow was highly respected and well-liked by the Russian soldiers, and his removal must have hurt the morale of the 58th Army really badly. Which I didn't know! He then adds his interpretation of the available data, saying that he thinks that the Ukrainians have a good chance to break through at the positions held by 58th Army and 5th Army. Oberstleutnant Karl also mentions he thinks that around Mid-September the Ukrainians should slowly wind down offensive operations and start switching to a flexible defense to keep what they got this year. The rest of the article is just Karl repeating everything else the thread has talked about, at length. The article is from 2nd August 2023
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2023 18:01
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Interesting, not a single tracer out other sign of fire to be seen. Staggering failure against a well known threat, for which there really can't be any excuse, and it can only be explained as a sign of a total lack of care. But they are right that technically it was destroyed on approach. It's not necessarily a sign of "didn't care". Maybe the radar was broken, or engaging other contacts. Maybe they thought there were only 4 contacts, engaged and destroyed 4, and didn't see the 5th. Maybe the sentry was yelling about it, but the gun on that side of the ship was being stripped for maintenance and they had trouble with an engine. Who knows. Should that attack have been defeatable? Yes, absolutely. But every successful attack is not evidence of wanton neglect, and assuming your enemy is routinely incompetent is a good way to lose. Fake edit: Or, maybe, as other posters have posted, that ship didn't have a gun capable of engaging the target. LifeSunDeath posted:the cost ratio of these drones vs the targets they destroy is unbelievable. starting to wonder why we need big ships or tanks anymore since they can all get taken out by homebrew RC devices and C4. Sigh....We've mentioned many times in this thread that we have a strong confirmation bias for successful attacks. You don't see the various misses, and you don't see the hits that got shrugged off. If tanks were useless then you wouldn't see Ukrainian infantry complaining about hard-to-kill Russian tanks causing them trouble. Big ships are necessary to do things like move armies, which is what that particular ship was designed to do. Unless you're the United States, you can't actually supply a large army with airplanes, and even the US would struggle at scales above a couple light infantry brigades. This whole over-simplification of "If it can be destroyed by something less expensive it must be worthless don't bother having it" is just purile.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2023 18:25
|
|
|
daslog posted:If you like reading fictional dystopian stories about automated weapons, check out Second Variety by Philip Dick. It's a short story written in the 80s about AI combat that might turn out to be decades ahead of it's time. I have read that! Dick had uncanny ability to see the future that was coming in a way I don't think many else could. That was actually written in 1953! It is wild to think he could think of that in 1953.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2023 18:56
|
|
|
daslog posted:If you like reading fictional dystopian stories about automated weapons, check out Second Variety by Philip Dick. It's a short story written in the 80s about AI combat that might turn out to be decades ahead of it's time. Or see Screamers starring Peter Weller. It's on Prime
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2023 19:07
|
|
|
This drone apocalypse chat is funny but every single non-rocket/jet propelled drone is defeatable with like, half a gepard/2К22 turret.OddObserver posted:Well, remote guided for 700km is kinda a big deal. OddObserver posted:Of course, on a flip side, a torpedo probably would have done more damage. evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 20:10 on Aug 4, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2023 19:57
|
|
|
Djarum posted:I have read that! Dick had uncanny ability to see the future that was coming in a way I don't think many else could. That was actually written in 1953! It is wild to think he could think of that in 1953. I find it cool to think how they had e.g. drone bombs and computers in WW2, so none of it was crazy speculation, 'just' taking existing things to their logical conclusion! In fact, the brother of JFK died in 1943 while priming a B-17 drone bomb that was remote controlled from another bomber. (He was an admirer of Hitler's sterilisation laws, so nothing of value was lost.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2023 20:15
|
|
|
GABA ghoul posted:Looks like the German fascist and neo-nazi party Afd got caught conspiring with Russian intelligence to try to delay weapons deliveries to Ukraine with a lawsuit. Supposedly, the costs of the lawsuit was to be paid by the Russian state and the negotiator was found with 9k EUR in mystery cash at the border. It's indirect evidence, so I dunno if heads will roll over this though It actually seems reassuring that the Afd can't be arsed to front 9K EUR for an ideological ally.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2023 21:08
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/JimmySecUK/status/1687570207294779392 A very grainy picture reporting to be of another explosion on the Kerch Bridge. If this is correct, interesting that it would happen so soon after the ship got hit. Perhaps it was a calculated distraction to leave the bridge more vulnerable?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2023 22:06
|
|
|
daslog posted:If you like reading fictional dystopian stories about automated weapons, check out Second Variety by Philip Dick. It's a short story written in the 80s about AI combat that might turn out to be decades ahead of it's time. Here's a link for the lazy! https://www.gutenberg.org/files/32032/32032-h/32032-h.htm
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2023 22:18
|
|
|
GABA ghoul posted:https://twitter.com/AndyVermaut/status/1687485591477501952?t=Vd3_h5XNhGwwHLZ4gzHrgw&s=19 i would hate to be the negotiator who was given 100,000€ of 500,000€ earmarked for this
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2023 22:25
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:Sigh....We've mentioned many times in this thread that we have a strong confirmation bias for successful attacks. You don't see the various misses, and you don't see the hits that got shrugged off. If tanks were useless then you wouldn't see Ukrainian infantry complaining about hard-to-kill Russian tanks causing them trouble. Maybe one day this'll become a copy-paste response, but here goes: I was part of an industry convention panel about 10-ish years ago. It wasn't recorded, but I and the other people on stage answered this question in length with me speaking for the ground AFV side of things (focusing mainly on developments in Syria), and most of my responses to ATGMs/air support removing tanks from the battlefield boiled down this way: -ATGMs are (mostly) inherently defensive, since tanks are inherently offensive*. Non-portable ATGMs take time to set up, and supplying them with ammo adds a great deal of weight. They require multiple people to service, and reload slowly. Once fired, you'll even be lucky if you're allowed to reload before the enemy responds. With proper infantry and AFV support, an ATGM will receive fire and not be able to retreat easily, or with all of its crew and supply, if at all. A tank's main gun can fire and maneuver multiple times in the same amount of time that an ATGM can fire two rounds. -Handheld ATGMs (NLAWs, Javelins) are more flexible for infantry operations, but have similar limitations in the form of mobility, crew, and sustained fire. -* You can't effectively assault a fortified enemy position with ATGMs as you can with an MBT. An MBT is nearly essential for offensive operations in a peer conflict. A tank is more than just a Heavy Thing with a big gun. It is part of a larger unit of big mobile Heavy Things with many, many guns as well as optical and communication suites that infantry or even smaller IFVs can't carry on their own. -Let's imagine a world where ATGMs are prevalent and over-performing (I gave this talk in like 2013, mind). This means that one side is on the defensive and the other is on the offensive. Wars aren't typically won by the defenders grinding the aggressors. Ground needs to be taken for a side to "win" a conflict. The defenders are going to have to counter-attack. Going back to what we've established, these ground-retaking operations will require the use of MBTs, likely against aggressor ATGMs, as again, you can't assault a fortification with ATGMs. -Then let's say we get rid of tanks. Whence cometh ATGMs? A nation may ask why they are carrying so many ATGMs when the opposition has refused to fight with heavy AFVs. This creates a situation where it is a good idea to start introducing AFVs against an ATGM-light force. There are other points I've brought up other times, but most of it boils down to the battle-need of the platform in question and can be answered in the ways that you (Ynglaur) have answered it. *I hate waffling, but keep in mind, I'm aware of extenuating circumstances where tanks can be useful in a defensive role, but they are inherently operational, non-static assets due to their maintenance and upkeep needs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2023 22:42
|
|
|
To boil it down further: If you are expected to advance against enemy positions, you want to point at some thing/structure/dude you really hate, and have it explode within the next few seconds. That means you want a cannon, you want the cannon to be able to move through bad terrain, and you want the cannon to have the best optics around. It doesn't matter one tiny bit if someone figures out a way to blow up your cannon, you really want one. Unless you can figure out a way to replace fast and accurate direct cannon fire with something else, the tank isn't going anywhere. Similarly, unless you can replace the capability of ships, they are going to be around unless the environment becomes absolutely oppressively hostile to ships. A proper formation of ships is still formidable and can defend against those drones just fine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2023 22:59
|
|
|
Chalks posted:https://twitter.com/JimmySecUK/status/1687570207294779392 The Ukrainians are starting to accelerate these attacks. Last one was two weeks ago. While I doubt a single explosion is going to take the bridge down, it is really sending the message that Ukraine can hit the bridge at any time
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2023 23:47
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:The Ukrainians are starting to accelerate these attacks. Last one was two weeks ago. While I doubt a single explosion is going to take the bridge down, it is really sending the message that Ukraine can hit the bridge at any time Which would make repairs, uhm, tricky.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2023 23:58
|
|
|
Pretty impressive they keep making successful hits considering Russians usually reacted to such attacks with immediately strengthening defense.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2023 23:58
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:The Ukrainians are starting to accelerate these attacks. Last one was two weeks ago. While I doubt a single explosion is going to take the bridge down, it is really sending the message that Ukraine can hit the bridge at any time Latest reports claim it was a Russian shipping tanker that was hit. https://twitter.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1687598405701283841
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2023 23:58
|
|
|
I think way too much is being made about UAVs, drones, etc making existing things like tanks and attack helicopters obsolete. It feels like this is the first big war people are really paying attention to in a long time and their ideas are being warped by the very specific and static circumstances of this conflict. Guys with drones carefully taking their time to drop grenades on a random guy in a foxhole or a UAV operator spotting stationary targets for PGMs with long kill chain times are great and necessary. A big part of a future war for any modern power if it comes. But at the end of the day, the enemy has busted through your lines and a couple of battalions of tanks and IFVs are motoring into your rear areas...you probably still want tanks. Lots of tanks and attack helicopters that can get there quickly and put out a lot of firepower in a very short amount of time and shoot them dead.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2023 00:00
|
|
|
The economist published this article on medics in Ukraine: https://www.economist.com/international/2023/08/04/what-ukraines-bloody-battlefield-is-teaching-medics quote:Finally, Ukraine illustrates how technology is changing military medicine. A study published in February 2021 by Lieutenant-Colonel Joseph Maddry and his colleagues at the US Army’s Institute of Surgical Research examined the records of 1,267 patients transported with traumatic injuries. Half did not receive any life-saving intervention en route and so might have been moved safely by drone. Anybody have any pictures or any evidence of these drones? Cargo drones carrying wounded seems like science fiction to me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2023 01:15
|
|
|
WarpedLichen posted:The economist published this article on medics in Ukraine: It's this type of thing: https://www.army-technology.com/projects/multi-utility-tactical-transport-mutt-ugv/ Here's another good summary, with some pictures in use: https://taskandpurpose.com/tech-tactics/army-s-met-robotic-mule-fielding/ Ynglaur fucked around with this message at 02:36 on Aug 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2023 02:33
|
|
|
Yea when we hear drone we assume the ones that fly but the ground based ones for medevac are definitely a thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2023 03:23
|
|
|
As are remote control jet skis with bombs on them now too, apparently. You might not be able to win a war entirely with unmanned vehicles or loitering munitions but their cost relative to the targets they're repeatedly knocking out is a big paradigm shift. Hell the fpv drones are as cheap as $400 each and can theoretically destroy any main battle tank by hitting it from above with a shaped charge warhead. The lancet and shahed 136 are also an order of magnitude cheaper than using a fighter launched guided bomb or cruise missile, respectively.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2023 03:37
|
|
|
jdam kits should be cheaper than lancets or shaheds. quite a bit cheaper than the lancets in particular. there's also even cheaper guidance kits than the jdam conversion iirc. the naval drones are also pretty expensive, estimates I've seen have all been low-mid six figures usd. obviously that's cheap compared to most of what they're targeting (though they've also hit quite small boats with them, so obviously not every target is maximizing the cost differential) tbh I'm not convinced that the economics on drone stuff are significantly better than other conventional, mass produced weapons. maybe with the cheapest adaptations of the mass produced consumer drones because those have very low costs due to economy of scale wrt their production. Outside of those, hell they might even be worse (basically nothing is going to beat the economics of firing a cheap rpg into something expensive), but the big advantage of them and probably the reason that they see such widespread use is that they present less risk to the operator than almost anything else. I'd also add that we do not have any idea what the failure:success rate is of most of the drone weapons and your 10x cost differential is negated if it is a 10% success rate. in any event, cheap little weapons destroying big expensive stuff does make for good propaganda/morale footage even if it isn't especially impactful in the grand scheme of things. loitering munitions in particular do seem to be effective in a way that the drone dropped munitions never even came close to, but those (particularly the more effective ones, eg bigger payloads, less susceptible to jamming) aren't cheap, either. Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 03:58 on Aug 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2023 03:54
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:insults regardless it is happening and drones are being used on both sides with varying success, but the main takeaway is they're cheap and effective.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2023 04:02
|
|
|
adebisi lives posted:The lancet and shahed 136 are also an order of magnitude cheaper than using a fighter launched guided bomb or cruise missile, respectively. Neither of those drones carry carry the comparable explosive yield to a proper bomb or cruise missile and their purpose (intended targets) is different. fatherboxx fucked around with this message at 08:24 on Aug 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2023 08:18
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Yeah, -10 degrees is really bad. Pretty much every other CIWS system out there has at least -13 degrees, with actual modern ones being -25 degrees.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2023 10:49
|
|
|
Payndz posted:On the other hand, the admirals' dachas are magnificent, so who's to say that their resources are being badly allocated? A dacha doesn't look that magnificent while plummeting from its third floor window.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2023 11:09
|
|
|
what if it has a gravity fountainYnglaur posted:It's this type of thing: https://www.army-technology.com/projects/multi-utility-tactical-transport-mutt-ugv/ were there actual reports of NATO sending them there? Or were they using homegrown Alan Smithee fucked around with this message at 13:11 on Aug 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2023 13:01
|
|
|
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/08/04/politics/cnn-poll-ukraine/index.htmlquote:Most Americans oppose Congress authorizing additional funding to support Ukraine in its war with Russia, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS, as the public splits over whether the US has already done enough to assist Ukraine. Somewhat expected but also annoying with the attention span of USA audiences. $30bil for the federal government for financial & humanitarian aid is chump change. The rest is military aid made up of, frankly, "imaginary" budget money. I know elections are coming up, but someone from Biden's team needs to start doing the weekend talkshow rounds about this talking point because the hammering by Republicans is starting to cause cracks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2023 13:40
|
|
|
The UK has done trials using the Malloy T400 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXPg-GW5EnU We've definitely supplied the smaller T150 to them (one of which was captured by Russia). It's entirely possible they've also had a small number of the T400s donated.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2023 13:40
|
|
|
ummel posted:https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/08/04/politics/cnn-poll-ukraine/index.html If anything, the aid is actually profitable since it's done under a lend-lease plan. Ukraine has to either pay back (unlikely) or the US can agree to future concessions to forgive the debt. Almost none of the stuff we are sending to them was going to do anything other than gather dust in a military storehouse until its retirement date anyway. Except for ammo maybe. So the alternative use's expected return was 0 or negative (accounting for storage costs)
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2023 13:52
|
|
|
nearly all of the American aid is under draw down authority (stuff we're done with) or USAI (a process for contracting new production to be given to Ukraine) neither of which is a loan and does not need to be paid back
Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 14:22 on Aug 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2023 14:19
|
|
|
Alan Smithee posted:were there actual reports of NATO sending them there? Or were they using homegrown I have not seen any reports on the US supplying these to Ukraine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2023 14:23
|
|
|
ummel posted:https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/08/04/politics/cnn-poll-ukraine/index.html While I do hope Ukraine wins, you can solidly put me in this group that is opposed to additional funding. I don't see any realistic prospect for a victory without Trillions of dollars coming from the US to fund the effort. Our track record for actually winning conflicts is poor (we are very good at destroying things, not so good at the actually winning part, see Afghanistan and Iraq) and we do not have out financial house in order.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2023 15:30
|
|
|
daslog posted:While I do hope Ukraine wins, you can solidly put me in this group that is opposed to additional funding. I don't see any realistic prospect for a victory without Trillions of dollars coming from the US to fund the effort. Our track record for actually winning conflicts is poor (we are very good at destroying things, not so good at the actually winning part, see Afghanistan and Iraq) and we do not have out financial house in order. Do you mean no more money full stop or ok with current annual spending but no more? Not sure what the end game is with this line of thought, I guess roughly equivalent to pushing a negotiated peace asap? I don't think drawing back funding and then throwing the (loaded) dice is really a viable course of action. I think ultimately pubic opinion on Ukraine will do little to change US foreign policy unless it tilts the needle just enough for Trump to win, it just doesn't seem like the top issue in anybody's mind.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2023 15:39
|
|
|
One of the reasons representative democracy is so sticky compared to direct democracy is that oftentimes the populace is either under informed via disinterest or via sensitive information being kept classified or some combination of both, so what they say they want might actually be myopic or a terrible choice. But since we have the benefit of it being several hundred people's full time job to keep up with the actual reality of a situation and process expert's analysis and recommendations, they can make better decisions, even when that may go against the public's perceived preferred outcomes. Which is why unless enough of the public/swing states start to care enough that it'll change their voting intentions, I don't see the US foreign policy decisions on military aid for Ukraine stopping anytime soon, because cutting off that support would be myopic and stupid and it's good that the vagaries of public opinion won't strip Ukraine of the support they need to stop a genocide being waged on them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2023 15:48
|
|
|
daslog posted:While I do hope Ukraine wins, you can solidly put me in this group that is opposed to additional funding. I don't see any realistic prospect for a victory without Trillions of dollars coming from the US to fund the effort. Our track record for actually winning conflicts is poor (we are very good at destroying things, not so good at the actually winning part, see Afghanistan and Iraq) and we do not have out financial house in order. This is so wrong I don’t know where to start. The US absolutely won militarily in afghanistan and iraq. The issue was that the people didn’t want us there and you can’t build governments on military campaigns. Ukraine is the exact opposite of it. We aren’t fighting. We aren’t trying to overthrow the status quo. We aren’t doing anything other than giving older equipment to Ukraine and training/intel. It’s the right thing to do morally and the right thing to do economically. This is so full of republican talking points that I wouldn’t be shocked to hear it out of Hannity.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2023 15:51
|
|
|
daslog posted:While I do hope Ukraine wins, you can solidly put me in this group that is opposed to additional funding. I don't see any realistic prospect for a victory without Trillions of dollars coming from the US to fund the effort. Our track record for actually winning conflicts is poor (we are very good at destroying things, not so good at the actually winning part, see Afghanistan and Iraq) and we do not have out financial house in order. Which conflicts was the US bad at "winning"? Do you have examples aside from Afghanistan and Iraq? Because I could be wrong I'm just a Canadian but didn't the US effortlessly "win" at the military side of things in those campaigns, and of the two only Afghanistan did the US fail at nation-building? Iraq seems to be a stable country today with ISIS mostly defeated no? But lets suppose okay we have two bad examples even though I would dispute them due to context; what about Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, Norway, Austria, Greece, arguably China; after defeating and driving back Nazi Germany and successfully rebuilding those countries with the Marshall Plan? The total amount spend in Marshall Plan aid in todays dollars is also only around 90ish billion dollars to boot. And can you expand more on how does the US not have its financial house in order? I don't think its debt to gdp ratio is *that* bad, and seems to me the amount of aid going to Ukraine is extremely small in comparison to GDP or the US total debt; the US in WW2 arguably was in a far worse economic situation due to the Depression relative to today and if anything WW2 helped the US economically recover; maybe the US should be spending more on aid to get its financial house in order, what about that?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2023 15:56
|
|
|
daslog posted:While I do hope Ukraine wins, you can solidly put me in this group that is opposed to additional funding. I don't see any realistic prospect for a victory without Trillions of dollars coming from the US to fund the effort. Our track record for actually winning conflicts is poor (we are very good at destroying things, not so good at the actually winning part, see Afghanistan and Iraq) and we do not have out financial house in order. Eh, we are currently in our element for successful US stuff. “A war in Europe and they need weapons?!” *time passes* US now has 50% of the world’s wealth to waste. I dunno, we have a good track record for making out extremely well in European wars. If chuds and pretend fiscal conservatives don’t screw up us allocating 5% of our military budget for crushing our perceived biggest rival, we will be flying high for a while.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2023 15:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 10:22 |
|
|
Right now the US is keeping a hostile foreign power from committing a lot of warcrimes (they are still committing some warcrimes) by helping to prop up the military of a friendly foreign power on... a practically insignificant budget compared to everything else we do. Those weapons are also degrading that hostile foreign power's ability to potentially engage in any other hostilities as well. Those weapons are also helping build back up some good will in the world to the USA as well as most nations at least feel the US is doing something good for once. Russia can go home any time they want, there is nothing keeping them in the Ukrainian people's land except for Putin's ambitions. And again what is the alternative? let Putin warcrime on Ukraine and its people?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2023 16:15
|
|
