|
shrike82 posted:Middle eastern leaders tend to die pretty abruptly precision missile strikes on US bases was a p good retort
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2022 14:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 22:01 |
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:What form of Syrian government wouldn’t be overthrown by the US, Saudi and Israel? They could have perfected Communism and all we’d be hearing would be about the tyranny of Assad and the corruption of the Syrian Communist Party. in fact, we’d be hearing a lot more about it if it were communist
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2022 14:16
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:he'll probably go like gaddafi at some point preventing this from happening is arguably the inciting incident for the past decade of us/russia relations
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2022 14:18
|
|
|
the us getting to kill a bunch of young russian males with no blowback given that russia is in a demographic crisis is pretty neat (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2022 14:21
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:the us getting to kill a bunch of young russian males with no blowback given that russia is in a demographic crisis is pretty neat gently caress you
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2022 14:22
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:the us getting to kill a bunch of young russian males with no blowback given that russia is in a demographic crisis is pretty neat 
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2022 14:24
|
|
|
that turd has spent years posting garbage like that and hes still here a big puzzle
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2022 14:27
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:a more interesting question to me is to compare Assadism to Putinism. Bar Ran Dun posted:I don’t have an answer. oh. you're simple jack
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2022 14:45
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:he'll probably go like gaddafi at some point shrike82 posted:the us getting to kill a bunch of young russian males with no blowback given that russia is in a demographic crisis is pretty neat Who must go? 
Fell Mood has issued a correction as of 15:03 on Sep 1, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2022 14:58
|
|
|
Fell Mood posted:Who must go? god bless America
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2022 15:03
|
|
|
lol at shrike82 finally pushing his luck
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2022 15:25
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:lol at shrike82 finally pushing his luck just a prob.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2022 16:17
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:the us getting to kill a bunch of young russian males with no blowback given that russia is in a demographic crisis is pretty neat lol what a dipshit
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2022 16:45
|
|
|
X-posting munitions chat from UKR thread: WRT armour shooting up infantry and rarely facing enemy MBTs, here the Soviets faced a bit of a wrinkle as their experience in WW2 led them to treat MBTs as an exploitation weapon that would suffer unacceptable casualties fighting a breakthrough against an entrenched enemy, but they also anticipated that in a Cold War gone hot meeting engagements, hasty attacks from the march, would be the most common action. As NATO forces became more armour heavy and mechanized generally, meeting engagements would mean that tanks would fight other tanks more commonly, as exploitation units would collide with the enemy’s mobile (and armoured reserve). With the spread of first APCs, then IFVs, and simultaneously all sorts of artillery, air defence, recce and even support vehicles protected by armour, the sheer number of armoured vehicles on the battlefield has exploded. While they aren’t tanks, they represent a threat MBTs have to be protected against and armed to defeat. Training in the Cold War emphasized that Canadians would encounter armoured vehicles of some sort in basically every action. Even when I was training typical calls for fire would be against a trio of BMPs, we did our anti-armour drills against steel cut-outs of BMPs and BTRs, there are Centurion hulks on the direct fire ranges, etc. All of that to say, it may be reasonable to think that MBTs will be thrown into action against vehicles armed to defeat them and protected to a degree, but it’s difficult to say if the proponents of HE/HESH or HEAT/APDS were correct in the end. However, Cold War planning aside, in the Arab-Israeli Wars, 1972-75 in Vietnam and the Iran-Iraq War, large swirling tank battles as reserves met the breakthrough - the situation at Smolensk and Prokhorovka - didn’t happen as often as anticipated. In the Gulf and 2003 Iraq War, Iraqi armoured units were often not just static but entrenched. American tanks deploying to Vietnam were designed and armed to defeat the Soviets in the Fulda Gap and had some difficulty providing infantry support. ISAF forces belatedly deployed to Afghanistan with the American Abrams having no High Explosive shell at all, and Canadian Leopard crews bemoaning the lack of HESH for defeating thick mud walled structures. Rheinmetall has been working on “next generation” smoothbore projectiles to replace High Explosives for a literal generation now, and no solution is in sight. Before I get into it, I’ll frontload the Paper here, article here. Essentially, during the 90’s most European NATO countries (and Canada) wanted to retire their MBTs because they’re expensive. Even before that, as I said smoothbore guns seriously reduced the supporting firepower of NATO MBTs as the last generation of them was designed almost entirely around confronting Soviet MBTs (which made them extremely expensive and why people wanted to retire them at the onset of The End of History). In both instances they ran into the problem of having no other way to reliably defeat structures and entrenched infantry. The Soviets got around it by having very good tank calibre HE that was reasonably accurate from their (larger than NATO caliber in every generation) smoothbore guns. Russian tank-fired HE these days is more capable now that it can be programmed for airburst, though my understanding is that those are in limited service. Rheinmetall got around it by proposing three extremely expensive types of smoothbore munitions that are supposed to replace High Explosive shells, but work through kinetic energy. Without getting into the principles of high explosives and fragmentation again, needless to say that’s a tall order. Moreover they’re supposed to be multipurpose shells too, that are able to defeat armour. It’s the space pen vs pencil thing all over again. The first, KETF is in limited service now and is essentially a 1914 shrapnel shell in modern autocannon calibre. There are still problems developing a 120mm version for tank guns paper here. The others, PELE and FAP, have been in various stages of development since the 70’s and are still not ready for prime time. I think that’s because the whole concept is flawed, but maybe someone here with a firmer grasp on physics can explain why. I always get them confused and engineering is not my strong suite so bear with me. FAP is a frangible round, made out of tungsten alloy, that progressively breaks up as it passes through armor, releasing a cloud of fragments upon exit. PELE is the competitor to FAP, comprised of a hard hollow body, filled with low-density material. When it hits its target, the low-density material inside the projectile becomes so compressed that it causes the warhead to burst, resulting in a large number of fragments, which travel exclusively in the round's trajectory. Both of these have failed to produce satisfactory results in testing and even in 35mm don’t provide the room-clearing effect of a low-order detonation of 35mm HE. That’s to say their ideal effect is less than a conventional High Explosive shell that fails to detonate properly. Compared to a proper high order detonation, it’s not close, and remember too that High Explosive shells even in autocannon calibres can have a variety of fuzings and settings that made them more effective. What that means is that a basic HE shell can be delay or base fuzed to explode behind even a substantial obstacle or exterior wall of a structure, can be fuzed to explode by time or proximity above defilade or in the interior of a room, and of course can be point fuzed to explode on contact. The non-explosive fragmenting rounds can’t be altered like that. KETF is the only one designed (and therefore able) to airburst, and conversely performs dismally when fired unfuzed at obstacles compared to point or delay fuzed HE. The penetrating projectiles, PELE and FAP, can’t burst above a target, but more importantly because they work by the mechanical effects of the projectile impacting a target, will have an optimum target thickness that can’t be altered. What I mean is that FAP and PELE are designed to produce fragments as they pass through armour (or if you like an obstacle), so both the velocity of the projectile and the thickness of the target completely change the effectiveness of the burst. If you’ve ever had to look at tables of equivalent thickness of RHA, steel, concrete, masonry, sandbags, wooden logs and earth, you’ll know that a projectile designed to burst behind one will prematurely break up or over penetrate the other. As I said, they’re machined with a certain thickness of shell wall, so unless you’re going to manufacture and issue projectiles labeled “35mm PELE, Brick,” and “35mm PELE, Concrete”… The other thing is that chemical energy is not dependent on projectile velocity, so while HE, HEAT and HESH* work to the same effect at all ranges, these will not. That means that you might be able to hit a target and have no effect on it because there’s not enough kinetic energy, which is an issue for weapons designed to engage infantry under cover. Driving closer to them could very well mean driving within range of their AT weapons, which is what tank HE shells were developed to avoid back in 1916. Finally, these projectiles were supposed to be available and effective across the whole range of calibres from 120mm tank guns, through 60-20mm autocannon (several of which are themselves are overdo or fall hilariously short of what was expected in the 70’s when they were conceived), down to .50 BMG. All of this time, effort and of course money, funnelled into a problem the Soviets solved by putting fins on a High Explosive shell. That’s not even getting into DIME, another insanely expensive projectile that would have the fragmentation body of conventional High Explosive replaced with small particles of tungsten. The idea was to inflict massive damage in given lethal range, but quickly loses impact outside of it. Safe, humane High Explosives for use in urban areas, in other words. Of course it turned out that a weapon that embeds tiny flecks of heavy metal, creating wounds which are both medically untreatable and poisonous is a huge violation of the Hague Conventions. The same might be said about Metal-Augmented Charge (MAC) projectiles, and American devised FAE that uses reactive metals instead of aerosolized fuel, for the same reasons. Naturally the only confirmed use of either is by Israel, against the Palestinians. *more complicated because there is a kinetic aspect to HESH and too high or low velocity can cause the projectile to break up or not detonate properly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 03:54
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:It sounds like you have an answer but you don’t want to say it. I don’t have the language to say what I think on the subject in this context. thatfatkid posted:gently caress you you arrogant oval office, who are you/the US to dictate what states are legitimate or not? I’m very comfortable asserting Revolutionary Romanticism anchored to a single nationalist leader is illegitimate. Because another word for that is fascism. Pener Kropoopkin posted:The alternative being argued for right now is that we have to keep the war going because Assad is a bad guy, and we can't let bad guys win. Since when? This isn’t my opinion, but I think the Syrian war ongoing is likely not related to Assad, but to Russian assistance to Assad. Because Grandeko isn’t wrong we he asserts “there is no alternative to Assad”. the state department position is probably closer to Shrike, they are bleeding Russia though Assad. indigi posted:oh. you're simple jack No it took a long time figure it out, having kids actually, cause it’s heritable and they get tested and diagnosed. Not really a topic for this thread. Bar Ran Dun has issued a correction as of 05:12 on Sep 2, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 04:43
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:I don’t have the language to say what I think on the subject in this context. gently caress you you stupid arrogant oval office
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 05:03
|
|
|
isnt it weird how the two most vital countries to russian naval power in the mediterranean are locked in forever war by american interference?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 05:04
|
|
|
thatfatkid posted:gently caress you you stupid arrogant oval office lol just looked at your post history. pro barrel bombs and barrel bomb accessories. indigi see we do have the real actually crazy person who loves Assad unquestionably and don’t just think a meme is funny.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 05:51
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/AnnQuann/status/1565208630256816129 what an unusual attachment for a heavy machine gun https://twitter.com/AnnQuann/status/1564483156576575490 edit: also vietnamese army food Danann has issued a correction as of 07:07 on Sep 2, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 07:02
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:lol just looked at your post history. pro barrel bombs and barrel bomb accessories. shut up dogbrains
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 08:18
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:This isn’t my opinion, but I think the Syrian war ongoing is likely not related to Assad, but to Russian assistance to Assad. Because Grandeko isn’t wrong we he asserts “there is no alternative to Assad”. the state department position is probably closer to Shrike, they are bleeding Russia though Assad. Russian assistance to Syria primarily comes from the air force, and their losses have been minimal. At worst the Russians have had a bunch of mercenaries get killed trying to test American limits but that's about it. Nobody is bleeding Russia white "through Assad," it's the country itself being bled white by imperialist intervention from NATO members and Israel. What you're saying is that the war would've already been over if the Russians hadn't stepped in to save the government's bacon. Alright, I suppose that's literally true. Now what do you think the consequences would be if the country was split up between multiple mutually hating sectarian militias & ISIS? Sounds a lot like a certain other Mediterranean country whose war was decisively ended by NATO meddling.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 08:31
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Russian assistance to Syria primarily comes from the air force, and their losses have been minimal. At worst the Russians have had a bunch of mercenaries get killed trying to test American limits but that's about it. Nobody is bleeding Russia white "through Assad," it's the country itself being bled white by imperialist intervention from NATO members and Israel. He doesn’t care, he’s a blood-gargling psychopath.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 08:43
|
|
|
Yeah I know. I just have to say things sometimes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 09:01
|
|
|
Danann posted:https://twitter.com/AnnQuann/status/1565208630256816129 sandals as official kit of the PAVN owns
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 14:05
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:lol just looked at your post history. pro barrel bombs and barrel bomb accessories. you're a neocon in "just a logistics guy" clothing, gently caress off
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 14:08
|
|
|
          
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 14:20
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:lol just looked at your post history. pro barrel bombs and barrel bomb accessories. Are you mad that Assad defeated ISIS?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 14:25
|
|
|
evilpicard posted:Are you mad that Assad defeated ISIS? less-than-moderate rebels
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 15:47
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:What you're saying is that the war would've already been over if the Russians hadn't stepped in to save the government's bacon. Alright, I suppose that's literally true. Now what do you think the consequences would be if the country was split up between multiple mutually hating sectarian militias & ISIS? Sounds a lot like a certain other Mediterranean country whose war was decisively ended by NATO meddling. I’ve got a longer post I need to write about this but there are actually formalized ways of thinking about “should we be in war X?” that are taught to officers particularly ones expected to be on an upward track to be staff and goto the war colleges, pentagon, etc. even in wars like Iraq 2 and Afghanistan this was used though the criteria were manipulated politically. any way Russia still being there is likely half of the civilian government justification to the military for being in the war.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 16:41
|
|
|
Doktor Avalanche posted:you're a neocon in "just a logistics guy" clothing, gently caress off logistics is the fighting of wars, possibly more than the actual fighting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 16:44
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:I’ve got a longer post I need to write about this but there are actually formalized ways of thinking about “should we be in war X?” that are taught to officers particularly ones expected to be on an upward track to be staff Yes, I know. What’s your point? I’ve read Why We Fight, even met Blattman, and it’s still all the End of History, NYT Editorial stuff that liberals point to in order to separate Good Wars from Bad Wars, and Good Actors from Bad Actors. Just because there’s a corpus doesn’t mean it’s not bullshit. Just because they teach formalized ways to agree with the neolib consensus at RMC and CADTC doesn’t mean that there’s skepticism at work. From the White Papers on down to Bde Arty Staff, the justification hinges on Canadian Security, Canadian Interests, Partner Nations, Alliance Members, the Rules Based International Order, etc etc which means that any war waged by us will be found justified. If the standard is that it’s in our (national) interest, then the only objection might be cost or jeopardizing security, and those are hardly moral questions. Bar Ran Dun posted:logistics is the fighting of wars, possibly more than the actual fighting. This I agree with, but that’s a REMF-rear end response. Frosted Flake has issued a correction as of 16:52 on Sep 2, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 16:45
|
|
|
It's just western exceptionalism to decide which wars are good and bad without giving a single gently caress about all the people they'll kill because they're somewhere over there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 16:49
|
|
|
Lostconfused posted:It's just western exceptionalism to decide which wars are good and bad without giving a single gently caress about all the people they'll kill because they're somewhere over there. If they’re clear for public release I’ll find the papers justifying Canada bombing Libya. Part of it was just like “showing our commitment to NATO”. The concern was that not showing up to an air campaign would be seen like not attending a party.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 16:53
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:which means that any war waged by us will be found justified. If the standard is that it’s in our (national) interest, then the only objection might be cost or jeopardizing security, and those are hardly moral questions. that’s half the criteria and lol stuff happened after why we fight. and “any war waged by us will be found justified.” is the problem the thinking attempted to respond to and correct and I would agree with the assessment that it has failed to do that. but you’ll have wait I until I write that up and lol I gotta work now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 17:14
|
|
|
FAILURE IN LIBYA: THE CONSEQUENCES OF INTERVENTION “This paper seeks to answer the question of what are the second order effects stemming from NATO’s intervention in Libya, what second order effects are being felt within the region, and what lessons can be drawn from Libya. The fact that the UN- backed NATO intervention in Libya was legal and arguably legitimate does not mean that it was prudent and responsible. This essay will aim to prove that the intervention in Libya was a failure due to the second order effects that are affecting Libya, and the surrounding region, to this day.” CRISIS IN LIBYA: FROM POLITICAL AND MILITARY INTERVENTION TO CIVIL WAR “For Western countries, major issues were at play during the Arab Spring. The end of dictatorships provided a unique opportunity for liberalization and democracy in the region, but also uncertainties about the future of Western influence. A genuine concern for human security motivated Western countries actions, from the raising of the R2P norm to the US adoption of the genocide and mass atrocity prevention/protection (GMAPP) policy. However, less altruistic interests also motivated the Western intervention that led to the removal of Gaddafi. Here was an opportunity to topple a leader that Western countries feared and hated despite recent improvement in the relationship between Gaddafi and the West. Europeans also wanted to protect their oil. However, Libya’s particular circumstances and Gaddafi’s reputation only partially explain inconsistencies in Western policy during the Arab Spring. Western countries tolerated violence in some countries, such as Bahrain and Yemen, while denouncing the government in Syria and pushing for military intervention in Libya. Western interests in the Persian Gulf and the dilemma between collective and human security are the other parts of this equation.” RCAF Commanders’ Perspectives During the 2011 Libya Conflict “The RCAF has recently developed a new capability centered on an independent Air Expeditionary Wing (AEW). Supported by new air expeditionary doctrine, this wing is designed to provide a mechanism for rapidly deploying Canadian airpower and delivering strategic effects around the world without causing major disruptions to the air force’s existing capabilities. Although the AEW did not become operational until 2013, Libya nevertheless served as a test of the concept. A number of accounts suggest that this concept served Op Mobile well in Libya, as one NATO official argued that Canada had clearly “punched beyond its weight” during the conflict in terms of both the leadership and capabilities it provided. Former United States (U.S.) Secretary of Defense Robert Gates expressed a similar sentiment, and it is understandable why Canada received these types of accolades. Not only did a Canadian (Lieutenant-General Charles Bouchard) command the NATO mission, but when compared to its overall size, the CF made a significant contribution by rapidly deploying seven CF-188 fighters, two CC-150 Polaris tankers, two CC-177 and two CC-130 transports, two CP-140 Aurora long-range patrol aircraft, and a CH-124 Sea King helicopter as well as a Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) frigate. Yet some scholars and pundits claim that upon closer examination, their nation’s military, humanitarian, and diplomatic efforts were “flying under the radar” of international opinion, which suggested that Canada overestimated its role in the conflict. As a result, the aim of this chapter is to determine whether and how Canadian expeditionary airpower allowed the government to achieve its foreign policy aims in Libya through the delivery of fast, effective, agile, and flexible strategic effects. Put another way, did Canada truly “punch above its weight” during Op Mobile, and what lessons, if any, did the RCAF learn from the mission?” Leading from Behind is Still Leading: Canada and the international Intervention in Libya “Despite uneven burden sharing within NATO, Canada’s membership in the alliance is not in question, and NATO remains an important element of Canada’s overall commitment to international security and stability. NATO’s operational experiences in Afghanistan and Libya, however, suggest that Canadians adopt a pragmatic approach to NATO authorized contingency operations. Whether for lack of capability, political will, or differing strategic priorities, not all NATO members will make the contributions to NATO authorized missions, especially outside continental Europe, that nations including Canada think they should. Nonetheless, the alliance does afford a number of operational advantages, including standardization, interoperability and command and control. Canadians should accept the reality that NATO leadership of contingency operations affords both benefits and challenges, and stop hoping that NATO will change.” Canadian military predicted chaos in Libya if NATO helped overthrow Gadhafi “Canadian military intelligence officers predicted in 2011 that Libya could descend into a lengthy civil war if foreign countries helped rebels toss out Moammar Gadhafi.” Wow it’s so nuanced. Lot’s of factors at work here. For example, membership in NATO has perks, so Canada participating in NATO military campaigns is Good. Have you considered we get accolades from foreign military officials? Nobody ever talks about that smh.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 17:28
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:FAILURE IN LIBYA: THE CONSEQUENCES OF INTERVENTION lol
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 17:39
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:I’ve got a longer post I need to write about this but there are actually formalized ways of thinking about “should we be in war X?” that are taught to officers particularly ones expected to be on an upward track to be staff and goto the war colleges, pentagon, etc. even in wars like Iraq 2 and Afghanistan this was used though the criteria were manipulated politically. I don't give a gently caress what the warmongers in the military think. Frosted Flake posted:The concern was that not showing up to an air campaign would be seen like not attending a party. To be fair that's true. It's like showing up to one of Marc Dutroux's parties and not murdering a teenager. Pener Kropoopkin has issued a correction as of 20:19 on Sep 2, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 20:16
|
|
|
I for one cant wait to see hundreds of words written up to elaborate on a doctrine morally equivalent to "My Dog told me to murder these people"
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 21:11
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:lol just looked at your post history. pro barrel bombs and barrel bomb accessories. How about if we strap white phosphorous to the barrel bombs and only use them on people who voted for communists. You're not pro commie and commie accessories are you? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2022 02:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 22:01 |
|
|
what is a barrel bomb, I thought bombs were either barrel-shaped or cone-shaped
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2022 05:48
|
|