Ukraine: The Aristoblyats

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Internet VFW > Ukraine: The Aristoblyats

«‹›987 »

Madurai: Jun 26, 2012

Are there any 120s that even make a figleaf attempt at being man-portable?

# ? Aug 16, 2022 17:54

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 5, 2024 17:03

PookBear: Nov 1, 2008

Madurai posted:

Are there any 120s that even make a figleaf attempt at being man-portable?

no, the best you can do is back it by mule

# ? Aug 16, 2022 17:59

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

120s are man portable in the sense you can carry them a short distance from the truck to where you're setting up.

Which, to be fair, is a notable mobility boost over something like a true towed howitzer.

# ? Aug 16, 2022 18:11

Valtonen: May 13, 2014; Tanks still suck but you don't gotta hand it to the Axis either.

Madurai posted:

Are there any 120s that even make a figleaf attempt at being man-portable?

When your rounds are 40+ pounds apiece, do the math for a ammo load for few fire missions.

Trying to make 120mm mortar really man-portable would tax on its advantages against smaller mortars (range, boom-size) or make them require unobtainium scifi materials which undoes their other advantage (cheap af)

# ? Aug 16, 2022 18:19

Icon Of Sin: Dec 26, 2008

Valtonen posted:

When your rounds are 40+ pounds apiece, do the math for a ammo load for few fire missions.

Trying to make 120mm mortar really man-portable would tax on its advantages against smaller mortars (range, boom-size) or make them require unobtainium scifi materials which undoes their other advantage (cheap af)

Option C: design a whole Stryker variant around them 🙃

probably should�ve done this from the start

# ? Aug 16, 2022 18:21

Valtonen: May 13, 2014; Tanks still suck but you don't gotta hand it to the Axis either.

Icon Of Sin posted:

Option C: design a whole Stryker variant around them 🙃

probably should�ve done this from the start

No, you call Swedes for bandwagens. Then theyre more than man-portable; theyre anywhere-mobile.

# ? Aug 16, 2022 18:27

bad_fmr: Nov 28, 2007

Just Another Lurker posted:

Iv'e always considered them to be an underappreciated item in combat, though maybe actual troops think differently.

Maybe the most important thing is that in Finland the granade launcher soldiers get the chad Jaeger rank while other artillery dudes get the virgin Artilleryman rank.

# ? Aug 16, 2022 18:40

carrionman: Oct 30, 2010

This may be the thread for it, if not please point me in the right direction.

What is the main goal of sanctions? So far I've seen them referred to as:

- useful as a threat, because targeting the wallets of businesses and their owners makes them put pressure on leaders to not start anything (in relation to China)

- used to reduce money into a hostile economy, limiting the scope of what they can get up to. (North Korea, Iran)

- making life hard for members of the targeted country in the hopes they'll blame their leadership and undergo a regime change (Cuba)

- they're a feel good move that's easy to sell, ruins the lives of the average person in the country, while leaving the power structures and political elite nearly untouched as they have the money and contacts to bypass them (North Korea, Russia)

And I realise I know nothing more about them than they're basically a boycott at a national level.
Are there any good beginners guides people here would reccomend about their goals and how effective they are?

# ? Aug 16, 2022 18:50

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

carrionman posted:

This may be the thread for it, if not please point me in the right direction.

What is the main goal of sanctions? So far I've seen them referred to as:

- useful as a threat, because targeting the wallets of businesses and their owners makes them put pressure on leaders to not start anything (in relation to China)

- used to reduce money into a hostile economy, limiting the scope of what they can get up to. (North Korea, Iran)

- making life hard for members of the targeted country in the hopes they'll blame their leadership and undergo a regime change (Cuba)

- they're a feel good move that's easy to sell, ruins the lives of the average person in the country, while leaving the power structures and political elite nearly untouched as they have the money and contacts to bypass them (North Korea, Russia)

And I realise I know nothing more about them than they're basically a boycott at a national level.
Are there any good beginners guides people here would reccomend about their goals and how effective they are?

The point of sanctions is to limit Russia's ability to arm itself and prosecute the war against Ukraine. Anything else is a side effect.

# ? Aug 16, 2022 18:56

Hieronymous Alloy: Jan 30, 2009; Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!; Morbid Hound

carrionman posted:

This may be the thread for it, if not please point me in the right direction.

What is the main goal of sanctions? So far I've seen them referred to as:

You're missing "limit ability to wage war."

E.g., if Russia can't import any plane parts, they can't replace lost aircraft.

# ? Aug 16, 2022 19:15

ASAPI: Apr 20, 2007; I invented the line.

carrionman posted:

This may be the thread for it, if not please point me in the right direction.

What is the main goal of sanctions? So far I've seen them referred to as:

- useful as a threat, because targeting the wallets of businesses and their owners makes them put pressure on leaders to not start anything (in relation to China)

- used to reduce money into a hostile economy, limiting the scope of what they can get up to. (North Korea, Iran)

- making life hard for members of the targeted country in the hopes they'll blame their leadership and undergo a regime change (Cuba)

- they're a feel good move that's easy to sell, ruins the lives of the average person in the country, while leaving the power structures and political elite nearly untouched as they have the money and contacts to bypass them (North Korea, Russia)

And I realise I know nothing more about them than they're basically a boycott at a national level.
Are there any good beginners guides people here would reccomend about their goals and how effective they are?

Well, Cuba isn't invading anyone at the moment. North Korea can't feed their military. Russia has started giving out medals to women who birth 10 children, so that kind of indicates how well things are going on there. Iran might be the "spiciest" of the bunch with them attempting to build nukes, but they have a whole host of other issues.

We have leveraged sanctions against both nations and individuals for a long time now. More often than not, they get people to fall in line.

Your list is correct, in a sense. Sanctions can be used to achieve any or all of those results. When the state has no money, the people have no money, and goods aren't being imported like they used to be, people get angry and demand change. Sometimes the people get what they want right away, sometimes they have to force things.

# ? Aug 16, 2022 19:25

hypnophant: Oct 19, 2012

Deteriorata posted:

The point of sanctions is to limit Russia's ability to arm itself and prosecute the war against Ukraine. Anything else is a side effect.

I disagree. The purpose of the threat of sanctions was to deter the invasion. That wasn't achieved so the sanctions must be applied to maintain credibility of the threat in the future (in the minds of the foreign policy apparatus of the relevant countries - I don't want to start an argument about the effectiveness of sanctions/western credibility.) Limiting Russia's ability to wage war is the side effect, and the sanctions would be applied regardless of their effectiveness for that purpose.

carrionman posted:

This may be the thread for it, if not please point me in the right direction.

What is the main goal of sanctions? So far I've seen them referred to as:

- useful as a threat, because targeting the wallets of businesses and their owners makes them put pressure on leaders to not start anything (in relation to China)

- used to reduce money into a hostile economy, limiting the scope of what they can get up to. (North Korea, Iran)

- making life hard for members of the targeted country in the hopes they'll blame their leadership and undergo a regime change (Cuba)

- they're a feel good move that's easy to sell, ruins the lives of the average person in the country, while leaving the power structures and political elite nearly untouched as they have the money and contacts to bypass them (North Korea, Russia)

And I realise I know nothing more about them than they're basically a boycott at a national level.
Are there any good beginners guides people here would reccomend about their goals and how effective they are?

A better question might be: Why select sanctions as a threat/response? That's relatively easy to answer: sanctions are less costly than a military response, which makes them more palatable to a domestic political audience and more credible as a threat, but they're still perceived as punishing enough to have a chance to deter, or to impact the enemy's ability to wage war over time.

# ? Aug 16, 2022 19:38

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

hypnophant posted:

I disagree. The purpose of the threat of sanctions was to deter the invasion. That wasn't achieved so the sanctions must be applied to maintain credibility of the threat in the future (in the minds of the foreign policy apparatus of the relevant countries - I don't want to start an argument about the effectiveness of sanctions/western credibility.) Limiting Russia's ability to wage war is the side effect, and the sanctions would be applied regardless of their effectiveness for that purpose.

A better question might be: Why select sanctions as a threat/response? That's relatively easy to answer: sanctions are less costly than a military response, which makes them more palatable to a domestic political audience and more credible as a threat, but they're still perceived as punishing enough to have a chance to deter, or to impact the enemy's ability to wage war over time.

The threat of sanctions is to deter, yes, but the actuality of sanctions is to change behavior. If Russia were to stop fighting, withdraw from Ukraine, and pay reparations to rebuild it, the sanctions on it would be repealed in a hurry.

As long as they're waging war on Ukraine, the sanctions regime makes maintaining that war increasingly difficult and costly.

# ? Aug 16, 2022 19:44

Cimber: Feb 3, 2014

Apparently the sanctions are working too:
https://www.politico.eu/article/russian-economy-to-contract-under-pressure-from-sanctions-central-bank-forecasts/

# ? Aug 16, 2022 19:55

golden bubble: Jun 3, 2011; yospos

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati..._source=twitter

quote:

The Americans offered little specific intelligence to support their warnings �until the last four or five days before the invasion began,� according to Dmytro Kuleba, Zelensky�s foreign minister. Less than two weeks after the Glasgow meeting, when Kuleba and Andriy Yermak, Zelensky�s chief of staff, visited the State Department in Washington, a senior U.S. official greeted them with a cup of coffee and a smile. �Guys, dig the trenches!� the official began. �When we smiled back,� Kuleba recalled, the official said, � �I�m serious. Start digging trenches. � You will be attacked. A large-scale attack, and you have to prepare for it.� We asked for details; there were none.�
....
�We had to strike a balance between realistically assessing the risks and preparing the country for the worst � and keeping the country running economically and financially,� Kuleba said. �Every comment coming from the United States about the unavoidability of war was immediately reflected in the [Ukrainian] currency exchange rate.� A number of U.S. officials have disputed Ukrainian recollections, saying they provided the Kyiv government with specific intelligence early on and throughout the lead-up to the invasion. Yet when it came to Ukraine, U.S. intelligence was hardly an open book. Official guidance prohibited the spy agencies from sharing tactical information that Ukraine could use to launch offensive attacks on Russian troop locations in Crimea or against Kremlin-backed separatists in the east.
....
�I think there were basically three flavors,� a senior administration official said. To many in Western Europe, what the Russians were doing was �all coercive diplomacy, [Putin] was just building up to see what he could get. He�s not going to invade � it�s crazy.� Many of NATO�s newer members in eastern and southeastern Europe thought Putin �may do something, but it would be limited in scope,� the official said, � � another bite at the [Ukrainian] apple,� similar to what happened in 2014. But Britain and the Baltic states, which were always nervous about Russian intentions, believed a full-scale invasion was coming. When skeptical member states asked for more intelligence, the Americans provided some, but held back from sharing it all.
....
Kuleba and others in the government believed there would be a war, the Ukrainian foreign minister later said. But until the eve of the invasion, �I could not believe that we would face a war of such scale. The only country in the world that was persistently telling us� with such certainty �that there would be missile strikes was the United States of America. � Every other country was not sharing this analysis and [instead was] saying, yes, war is possible, but it will be rather a localized conflict in the east of Ukraine.� �Put yourself in our shoes,� Kuleba said. �You have, on the one hand, the U.S. telling you something completely unimaginable, and everyone else blinking an eye to you and saying this is not what we think is going to happen.� In fact, the British and some Baltic officials believed a full invasion was probable. But Kuleba was far from alone in his skepticism. His president shared it, according to Zelensky�s aides and other officials who briefed him. �We took all of the information that our Western partners were giving us seriously,� recalled Yermak, Zelensky�s chief of staff. �But let�s be honest: Imagine if all of this panic that so many people were pushing had taken place. Creating panic is a method of the Russians. � Imagine if this panic had started three or four months beforehand. What would�ve happened to the economy? Would we have been able to hold on for five months like we have?�
....

On Jan. 12, Burns met in Kyiv with Zelensky and delivered a candid assessment. The intelligence picture had only become clearer that Russia intended to make a lightning strike on Kyiv and decapitate the central government. The United States had also discovered a key piece of battlefield planning: Russia would try to land its forces first at the airport in Hostomel, a suburb of the capital, where the runways could accommodate massive Russian transports carrying troops and weapons. The assault on Kyiv would begin there. At one point in their conversation, Zelensky asked if he or his family were personally in danger. Burns said Zelensky needed to take his personal security seriously.

But Zelensky resisted calls to relocate his government and was adamant that he not panic the public. Down that path, he thought, lay defeat. �You can�t simply say to me, �Listen, you should start to prepare people now and tell them they need to put away money, they need to store up food,� � Zelensky recalled. �If we had communicated that � and that is what some people wanted, who I will not name � then I would have been losing $7 billion a month since last October, and at the moment when the Russians did attack, they would have taken us in three days. ... Generally, our inner sense was right: If we sow chaos among people before the invasion, the Russians will devour us. Because during chaos, people flee the country.� For Zelensky, the decision to keep people in the country, where they could fight to defend their homes, was the key to repelling any invasion. �As cynical as it may sound, those are the people who stopped everything,� he said.

Ukrainian officials remained irritated that the Americans weren�t sharing more about their intelligence sources. �The information that we received was, I would call it, a statement of facts without a disclosure of the origins of those facts or of the background behind those facts,� Kuleba recalled.
.....
For Kuleba, the turning point came in the days after the Feb. 18-20 Munich conference, when he traveled again to Washington. �These were the days I received more-specific information,� he recalled. At a specific airport A in Russia, they told him, five transport planes were already on full alert, ready to take paratroops at any given moment and fly them in the direction of a specific airport B in Ukraine. �That was where you see the sequence of events and the logic of what is happening,� he said.

# ? Aug 16, 2022 20:09

Herstory Begins Now: Aug 5, 2003; SOME REALLY TEDIOUS DUMB SHIT THAT SUCKS ASS TO READ ->>

I don't doubt for a second that Ukraine both got very detailed intelligence from the US about the specific start of the invasion but that it probably only went to about 3 people in Ukraine. Ukrainian sbu was considered compromised through and through by Russians and, from statements, the feeling was that literally anything operationally sensitive that went to Ukrainian SBU would end up in russian hands within hours.

there was additionally the reality that basically everyone russia affiliated was busy denying the oncoming invasion 24/7 in the weeks leading up to it and that was a looot of people.

tbh I think ukraine did about as well as humanly possible in that hosed up situation. Similar in some respects to what China wants to do with Taiwan, the entire point of it was to put Ukraine in a situation where there was no winning move. They either prepare and implode their economy and cause a refugee crisis or they don't prepare and russia steam rolls them. Frankly responding by both playing down the threat while also preparing is probably the only thing you really can do in that situation.

also i'm not suggesting the response was perfect, kherson is certainly a big, painful failure, but on the other hand, they still have their country

Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Aug 16, 2022

# ? Aug 16, 2022 20:27

ganglysumbia: Jan 29, 2005

In regards to the days prior to the invasion, the last podcast episode of Politics Decanted a Ukrainian Colonel mentions that they believed that the Russians would not be foolish enough to launch such a large scale invasion with the numbers they had there at the time, hence the reason Zelensky was going on TV telling everyone to chill out.

# ? Aug 16, 2022 20:40

Alchenar: Apr 9, 2008

Herstory Begins Now posted:

I don't doubt for a second that Ukraine both got very detailed intelligence from the US about the specific start of the invasion but that it probably only went to about 3 people in Ukraine. Ukrainian sbu was considered compromised through and through by Russians and, from statements, the feeling was that literally anything operationally sensitive that went to Ukrainian SBU would end up in russian hands within hours.

there was additionally the reality that basically everyone russia affiliated was busy denying the oncoming invasion 24/7 in the weeks leading up to it and that was a looot of people.

tbh I think ukraine did about as well as humanly possible in that hosed up situation. Similar in some respects to what China wants to do with Taiwan, the entire point of it was to put Ukraine in a situation where there was no winning move. They either prepare and implode their economy and cause a refugee crisis or they don't prepare and russia steam rolls them. Frankly responding by both playing down the threat while also preparing is probably the only thing you really can do in that situation.

also i'm not suggesting the response was perfect, kherson is certainly a big, painful failure, but on the other hand, they still have their country

Yeah there's probably a perfect-hindsight slightly better set of decisions the Ukrainian government could have made, but I would be really skeptical of anyone claiming they could have made better decisions than Zelensky given the information he had to hand.

# ? Aug 16, 2022 20:49

Cimber: Feb 3, 2014

Alchenar posted:

Yeah there's probably a perfect-hindsight slightly better set of decisions the Ukrainian government could have made, but I would be really skeptical of anyone claiming they could have made better decisions than Zelensky given the information he had to hand.

Mistakes are going to be made, but how good leadership is is how they mitigate those mistakes and deal with the friction of war. I think Ukrainian leadership has done a fine drat job with that.

The fact that they still exist as a country is testament enough.

# ? Aug 16, 2022 20:56

aphid_licker: Jan 7, 2009

All the points about not burning down the econ in October are perfectly reasonable but given the state of the Russian military at the time of invasion just dispersing some atgm teams on the roads out of Crimea would've done wonders for them at p limited cost if there turns out to be no invasion

# ? Aug 16, 2022 21:24

Herstory Begins Now: Aug 5, 2003; SOME REALLY TEDIOUS DUMB SHIT THAT SUCKS ASS TO READ ->>

that was literally the plan but for a certain reason that ukraine is extremely angry about now that did not happen. Similar reason to how it was that weapons and ammunition and other supplies came to be pre-staged in Ukraine

# ? Aug 16, 2022 21:29

Valtonen: May 13, 2014; Tanks still suck but you don't gotta hand it to the Axis either.

Also to anyone noting that Putin had unlimited time to screw with ukraine by playing �not touching you� from october to february it had a cost: I recall Reading both from here and from HS.fi reports that the Russian units �training� in belarus were resorting to basically loot-foraging for resupply by mid-january due to lack of preparation and MREskis. This HAD to strain the supply situation on the assault on Kyev.

# ? Aug 16, 2022 21:33

Uncle Enzo: Apr 28, 2008; I always wanted to be a Wizard

Plus Ukraine did disperse its air force although not the bayraktars, and they even got lucky with those.

We now know in retrospect that US intelligence was right, but that was not assured at the time. Calling up reserves and declaring martial law and dynamiting bridges just aren't things you can do based on a briefing.

And the whole "US didn't present specific evidence'" is two edged because yes, how is an elected official supposed to tell the populace what's going on with no evidence to present? On the other hand, the stuff that made the US know the actual Russian intentions (ie the actual hardest thing in the world to actually know) was sources like ????, XXXX, and of course the highly-placed informant, ZZZZ.

Sources that are privy to actual intentions and orders, absolutely trustworthy, but you can't even allude to them because they'll dry up or get killed the instant word gets out. Now maybe that would have been an acceptable price to pay to give Ukraine some degree more time? But the US Intel community does at least try to keep their sources alive if they have a choice. God knows we've gotten enough people working for us killed as it is.

cue people bringing up that US spy that Bush burned, Trump tweeting classified satellite photos, anything to do with the Kurds... I'm just saying it's bad enough already

# ? Aug 16, 2022 21:48

PookBear: Nov 1, 2008

McNally posted:

Don't post snuff.

# ? Aug 16, 2022 21:57

Cugel the Clever: Apr 5, 2009; I LOVE AMERICA AND CAPITALISM DESPITE BEING POOR AS FUCK. I WILL NEVER RETIRE BUT HERE'S ANOTHER 200$ FOR UKRAINE, SLAVA

Cimber posted:

Apparently the sanctions are working too:

Uhh, excuse me, have you seen the ruble to dollar exchange rate lately???? :smug:

# ? Aug 16, 2022 22:25

Nuclear Tourist: Apr 7, 2005

ganglysumbia posted:

In regards to the days prior to the invasion, the last podcast episode of Politics Decanted a Ukrainian Colonel mentions that they believed that the Russians would not be foolish enough to launch such a large scale invasion with the numbers they had there at the time, hence the reason Zelensky was going on TV telling everyone to chill out.

I also seem to remember Arestovych mentioning that if they had come out and said that a no poo poo full scale invasion was imminent, then by the time the invasion actually happened every single roadway and arterial out of Kyiv would have been utterly and completely gridlocked with refugees. Like many times worse than what we saw in the days following Feb 24. Any Ukrainian tanks and heavy vehicles heading to the front would have had to plow through refugees to get there.

# ? Aug 16, 2022 22:40

Godholio: Aug 28, 2002; Does a bear split in the woods near Zheleznogorsk?

Cythereal posted:

Ukraine has a new toy that wasn't announced.

https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1559259073031409666

It looks like a telescope. :stare:

# ? Aug 16, 2022 22:51

Comrade Blyatlov: Aug 4, 2007; should have picked four fingers

Godholio posted:

It looks like a telescope.

Gaze into my telescope, it shows only one thing

Your impending death

# ? Aug 17, 2022 00:32

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

More mystery explosions deep in Crimea. Railroad ammo dump and power substation that feeds electric railways.
Drone? Sabotage? Either way, Russians are probably feeling a lot more nervous.

https://twitter.com/JimmySecUK/status/1559468062545420288
https://twitter.com/igorsushko/status/1559406646945648640
https://twitter.com/JayinKyiv/status/1559404908394291201

# ? Aug 17, 2022 00:48

Jimmy Smuts: Aug 8, 2000

It's Wolverines
edit: If I didn't know any better I'd think the Russians might be storing backpack nukes with safeties off at some of these dumps, some of those explosions are gigantic

Jimmy Smuts fucked around with this message at 01:25 on Aug 17, 2022

# ? Aug 17, 2022 01:20

Murgos: Oct 21, 2010

Jimmy Smuts posted:

It's Wolverines
edit: If I didn't know any better I'd think the Russians might be storing backpack nukes with safeties off at some of these dumps, some of those explosions are gigantic

Tom Clancy missed the part in Red Storm Rising where the Soviet offensive fails 72 hours in because all their ammo storage has gone up in flames and they are out of bullets.

# ? Aug 17, 2022 03:16

M_Gargantua: Oct 16, 2006; STOMP'N ON INTO THE POWERLINES; Exciting Lemon

Jimmy Smuts posted:

It's Wolverines
edit: If I didn't know any better I'd think the Russians might be storing backpack nukes with safeties off at some of these dumps, some of those explosions are gigantic

Ordnance makes some big booms but even a tiny nuke would make clouds a km in height. It's hard for people to visualize the scale of even the smallest nuclear munitions

# ? Aug 17, 2022 03:28

A.o.D.: Jan 15, 2006

M_Gargantua posted:

Ordnance makes some big booms but even a tiny nuke would make clouds a km in height. It's hard for people to visualize the scale of even the smallest nuclear munitions

Also, the explosions are way brighter than anything you've ever seen.

# ? Aug 17, 2022 03:35

Midjack: Dec 24, 2007

Plus they'd kick up a bunch of fallout and any sort of radiation monitoring would be freaking out immediately from that getting blown all over the place.

# ? Aug 17, 2022 03:37

orange juche: Mar 14, 2012

Yeah, nuclear booms are impossible to imitate with conventional explosives, even the smallest ones will make day seem like night for anyone within visual range of it.

There's a reason it's called canned sunshine.

# ? Aug 17, 2022 04:08

in a well actually: Jan 26, 2011; dude, you gotta end it on the rhyme

Jimmy Smuts posted:

It's Wolverines
edit: If I didn't know any better I'd think the Russians might be storing backpack nukes with safeties off at some of these dumps, some of those explosions are gigantic

Galveston and halifax would like a word.

e: Texas City, I guess.

in a well actually fucked around with this message at 04:44 on Aug 17, 2022

# ? Aug 17, 2022 04:39

Cugel the Clever: Apr 5, 2009; I LOVE AMERICA AND CAPITALISM DESPITE BEING POOR AS FUCK. I WILL NEVER RETIRE BUT HERE'S ANOTHER 200$ FOR UKRAINE, SLAVA

Murgos posted:

Tom Clancy missed the part in Red Storm Rising where the Soviet offensive fails 72 hours in because all their ammo storage has gone up in flames and they are out of bullets.

Excuse me, but this is incredibly Russophobic. The ongoing special operation is a limited exercise of Russia's Western Military District. The restraint exercised by the valiant Russian soldiers in the preceding months shouldn't be misconstrued as detracting from the Russian military's status as an indisputable peer to the American empire. Any incidents that have been propagandized as evidence of rank incompetence at every level of the Russian military hierarchy are in fact either complete fabrications by Western powers, bog-standard accidents subjected to undue theory-mongering, or deliberate feints that will serve as prelude to inevitable Russian victory :smug:

# ? Aug 17, 2022 04:52

Kchama: Jul 25, 2007

That reminds me that Van Riper (yes that one) put out an article that actually claimed it was all just a feint with full seriousness.

# ? Aug 17, 2022 05:17

Vincent Van Goatse: Nov 8, 2006; Enjoy every sandwich.; Smellrose

Kchama posted:

That reminds me that Van Riper (yes that one) put out an article that actually claimed it was all just a feint with full seriousness.

Van Wiper (of asses).

# ? Aug 17, 2022 06:03

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 5, 2024 17:03

BIG HEADLINE: Jun 13, 2006; "Stand back, Ottawan ruffian, or face my lumens!"

M_Gargantua posted:

Ordnance makes some big booms but even a tiny nuke would make clouds a km in height. It's hard for people to visualize the scale of even the smallest nuclear munitions

Here's what four kilotons of high-explosive going off looks like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_Scale

And video of it (slow it to 0.25x): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb1GhrLYOCA&t=258s

And here's another test, Misty Picture, advanced to the explosion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECQi4JuPt5g&t=102s

BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 06:09 on Aug 17, 2022

# ? Aug 17, 2022 06:06

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Internet VFW > Ukraine: The Aristoblyats

«‹›987 »