|
Ynglaur posted:drat. I played an old hex-based wargame called Sixth Fleet years ago, and I don't remember the Turkish navy being that large. That's playing a little fast and loose, and probably counting patrol boats or something. The actual current strength of the Turkish Navy is roughly: 8 Type 209 submarines. (Another 4 in refit.) 8 OHP (ex-USN) frigates refitted with a modernized battle management system, sonar and radar. All have Harpoons. (4 of them also have ESSM.) 8 MEKO200 (German contract) frigates (4 with ESSM and modern radars) 4 Ada-class domestic ASW corvettes. (Very modern and chock full of modern NATO poo poo, no idea how good they actually are.) 6 A69 (ex-french navy (nice  )) ASW corvettes (I think these were supposed to be phased out with the introduction of the Adas, but when those were commissioned, the Turks took a long look at what was happening across the Black Sea and extended their service lives.)18 FACs of various classes (~500-ton platforms that carry up to 8 Harpoons. No appreciable defenses. The plan apparently is a glorious death ride to get to launch missiles and then get sunk, with posthumous commendations.) 16 Patrol boats with ASW sonar. In general, most of these are quite obsolete by western standards, but cutting edge compared to their competition. Turkish training and leadership is also considered to be not the best by western standards, but lightyears ahead of the competition. In reality, the Turkish Navy has been the strongest Navy in the Black Sea since the beginning of this conflict.
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2022 21:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 04:00 |
|
|
I'm happy my boy Erdogan is on the scewhat the gently caress am i saying
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2022 22:08
|
|
|
 Thread moderation update Given the recent QCS thread, I speculate that there's a non-zero number of goons who may consider tempting the fate here. Accordingly, I'd like to refine the enforcement of D&D rules concerning posting about forums, posters in this thread. From now on, rules-breaking posts about Ukraine threads in other subforums will be met with a 1-day minimum probation, and I recommend against finding out the plan for repeat offenders. In a break with the regular process, any feedback concerning this specific rules change will have to be either sent to me or Koos Group via PMs, or wait until the next D&D feedback thread, since I'm going to treat any public feedback or commentary on it as a violation of the new rule. You can, of course, make use of the linked QCS thread for that as well, but do not count on me or any other D&D moderator to be reading it, the subject being not related to us.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2022 22:20
|
|
|
I want to see a picture of this 500 ton craft with 8 harpoons on it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2022 22:34
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:I want to see a picture of this 500 ton craft with 8 harpoons on it. Here you go, Kilic-class, 550 tons, crew of 45, 40 knots.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C4%B1l%C4%B1%C3%A7-class_fast_attack_craft
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2022 22:45
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:I want to see a picture of this 500 ton craft with 8 harpoons on it. I imagine they are talking about the missile type.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2022 22:45
|
|
|
For some reason I thought it would be much smaller.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2022 22:54
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:For some reason I thought it would be much smaller. 500 tons is a big ship no matter who you are.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2022 23:03
|
|
|
Depleted uranium boats don't float.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2022 23:03
|
|
|
mllaneza posted:Here you go, Kilic-class, 550 tons, crew of 45, 40 knots. I for one really appreciate the Patrick O'Brien reference, even if they spelled it wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2022 23:26
|
|
|
PederP posted:That's a massively long line of defense. They will need a lot of units (and supplies) to garrison it properly - all the while Ukraine can pummel it with artillery. If Russia end up evicted or withdrawing from Kherson, then falling back to those lines will just give them a massive stretch of frontline to suck up supplies and manpower - and Ukraine can shift their offensive capabilities to Zaporizhzhia and/or Donbas after securing Kherson. Putin really does seem intent on bleeding away every ounce of Russian military and economic power to postpone the inevitable defeat. Yeah, I get rivers are natural barriers and the Dniepr is a pretty massive example of such, but still, this war is getting increasingly modern, and Russian tactics keep regressing in the opposite direction. The strikes against infrastructure is the only real bite (disgusting as it may be) the Russian forces have shown recently - I do think that while in a military sense they aren't that effective - at a strategic level they are very cost-effective and deal a lot of economic and civic morale damage without evoking the same international ire as strikes against residential, educational and commercial buildings. The river line itself will provide the majority of the protection with the supposed threat of blowing the dam at Nova Kharkova being the main deterrent to the Ukrainians trying to instigate offensive operations on the river below where that dam sits. My understanding is that the Dnipro does freeze in that area between early January and March but that the ice is not stable and will not support heavy vehicular traffic like tanks or infantry vehicles. The river north of Nova Kharkova is also progressively wider until Zaporizhzhya. This will be nothing like forcing across a small river like the Inhulets which saw the Ukrainians having marginal success and even to this day the Ukrainians have still been unable to sustain pressure against a supposedly demoralized, undersupplied, and undermanned defense in Kherson. The Ukrainians are not exactly having their way with the Russians whenever they want. It is unlikely this line gets breached in the winter should the Russians actually withdraw behind the Dnipro and it probably isn't the best place to use Ukraine's troops.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2022 23:41
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:IIRC they're also extremely light on supporting infantry, which means they're vulnerable to the sort of ATGM ambush tactics the Ukrainians have shown themselves to be masters of. They're not supposed to be. The idea was that they would use locals as supporting infantry. Russian tactics kind of viewed local militias as ablative armored for their regular forces. Thanks for the naval info, thread. That game I mentioned had missile boats in it. They were nasty: very high attack ratings, and could mess up a CBG, but could only shoot 2 or 3 times and had no appreciable anti-air craft or anti-submarine capability. Definitely glass cannons.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2022 00:05
|
|
|
BlueBlazer posted:500 tons is a big ship no matter who you are. 500 tons displacement is a boat. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2022 00:38
|
|
|
Man Russia must have like, infinity armored vehicles. Every day there are so many new videos of Russian tanks/apcs etc getting blown up in various ways and this has been going on since the start of war. Like are they ever going to run out?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2022 00:45
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:Man Russia must have like, infinity armored vehicles. Every day there are so many new videos of Russian tanks/apcs etc getting blown up in various ways and this has been going on since the start of war. Like are they ever going to run out? Soviet army was big. Think like 50-100k tanks stockpiled, with Russia inheriting the majority. If you’re waiting for them to run out of any armoured vehicles, you might be in for a rather long run, with the matter of maintenance quality being at best of tertiary importance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2022 00:48
|
|
|
BlueBlazer posted:500 tons is a big ship no matter who you are. 500 tons is really not a lot of ship to carry 8 harpoons. That boat basically consists of engine, missiles, and things needed to support firing of the missiles.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2022 00:51
|
|
|
The insider reports Estonian border guards being mega assholes to fleeing Ukranian and refusing entry https://theins.ru/news/256649 According to the story had tickets and paperwork to go to UK, was refused as a security threat because his phone was "too clean", requested asylum, was threatened with violence and thrown back into russia Sekenr fucked around with this message at 01:11 on Nov 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2022 01:05
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:Man Russia must have like, infinity armored vehicles. Every day there are so many new videos of Russian tanks/apcs etc getting blown up in various ways and this has been going on since the start of war. Like are they ever going to run out? They're burning through fifty years of stockpiling for the Third World War. That's why they seem to have immense equipment reserves to burn and an open question is at what point do they need to reach so far back in their stocks that quality declines sharply and they cease to be functional.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2022 01:05
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:500 tons displacement is a boat. It's 200 feet long, boats generally stop at about 100.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2022 01:10
|
|
|
Tuna-Fish posted:500 tons is really not a lot of ship to carry 8 harpoons. That boat basically consists of engine, missiles, and things needed to support firing of the missiles. yeah 500 tons is more along the lines of a large commercial fishing boat than what people normally think of as a warship. mllaneza posted:It's 200 feet long, boats generally stop at about 100. That's still small as far as big things that float go
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2022 01:10
|
|
|
Sekenr posted:The insider reports Estonian border guards being mega assholes to fleeing Ukranian and refusing entry Unfortunately, Estonia has been somewhat on a bragging streak about deporting people, and past governments with the likes of EKRE have unlikely helped building a modern border guard service, so this is very much plausible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2022 01:17
|
|
|
Morrow posted:They're burning through fifty years of stockpiling for the Third World War. That's why they seem to have immense equipment reserves to burn and an open question is at what point do they need to reach so far back in their stocks that quality declines sharply and they cease to be functional. Yeah, it's quite funny how large relatively conservative estimates of Russian tank numbers are. https://kyivindependent.com/national/how-many-tanks-does-russia-really-have This article uses the Military Balance 2021 (2021 assumes Russians mothballed all the Soviet era tanks like the T-62 which are seeing service now) and 2016 and arrives at an estimated 17,300 tanks. Oryx is tracking 1420 tanks destroyed right now? So yeah, 12 more years of tank losses without even building any new tanks by those assumptions. Edit: want to stress these are not good assumptions WarpedLichen fucked around with this message at 01:43 on Nov 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2022 01:20
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:500 tons displacement is a boat. Who the hell uses displacement to measure boat size? You use potential cargo size based on arcane formulas developed in the 19th century and completely divorced from modern reality or you just eyeball the thing. Nobody cares how much it weighs, it's in the water! (And it's over 500 tons of cargo size and ocean-going for a ship!) BIG FLUFFY DOG fucked around with this message at 01:26 on Nov 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2022 01:23
|
|
|
Even if those numbers are accurate what condition are they in?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2022 01:24
|
|
|
BIG FLUFFY DOG posted:Who the hell uses displacement to measure boat size? You use potential cargo size based on arcane formulas developed in the 19th century and completely divorced from modern reality or you just eyeball the thing. Nobody cares how much it weighs, it's in the water! apologies for continuing the POB riff.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2022 01:31
|
|
|
Considering the number of russian conscripts coming in and the quality of training they are receiving, is russian command capable of handling a force of that size? It sounds like thousands and thousands of poorly equipped and undisciplined troops that dont want to be there would be impossible to effectively control, even if they have competent command structure. I dont see how this wouldnt lead to a complete breakdown at some point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2022 01:34
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:500 tons displacement is a boat. The way I was taught, the difference between a boat and a ship is that you can put a boat on a ship but you can't put a ship on a boat, and that's all there is to it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2022 01:40
|
|
|
the rat fandom posted:Considering the number of russian conscripts coming in and the quality of training they are receiving, is russian command capable of handling a force of that size? You forgot to factor in the subzero temperatures and snow. Things are going to be a complete shitshow by January.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2022 01:41
|
|
|
mllaneza posted:It's 200 feet long, boats generally stop at about 100. I could put it on a ship. I mean the heaviest lift I’ve been directly involved was just a bit shy of 400MT. BIG FLUFFY DOG posted:Who the hell uses displacement to measure boat size? You use potential cargo size based on arcane formulas developed in the 19th century and completely divorced from modern reality or you just eyeball the thing. Nobody cares how much it weighs, it's in the water! Don’t make me talk about G.R.T. and N.R.T. I use displacement and deadweight to talk about vessel size. Nobody that matters cares about NT. It’s a number you write down in the notes off the particulars and then forget forever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2022 01:47
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:Even if those numbers are accurate what condition are they in? They wouldn't be digging out and having to refurbish ancient T-62's if they were in good condition. Based on Russian losses you can get a pretty accurate picture of what was functional. First, you have the most modern stuff. Mostly stuff that was new when the USSR collapsed or rolled off production lines afterwards, with upgrades applied to them over the past few decades. The bulk was the "modern" T-72B3 fleet. Somewhere around 420 of those destroyed/captured. Then you have a handful of T-72 obr. 1989, T-90A, and T-90M's. These are just the late 80's revision of the T-72, with the T-90 being renamed for export purposes after Desert Storm. About 100 destroyed/captured. Then you had the modernized T-80's with the T-80BVM/UK/U. Around 150 destroyed/captured. Now you get into the early 80's stuff that was still pretty modern but not cutting edge when the USSR collapsed. This stuff was retained in service when the USSR fell along with much of the above vehicles. The bulk was the early 80's T-72B and T-72BAs. These were the T-72Bs that were in poorer shape and never saw the T--72B3 upgrades. About 290 of these destroyed/captured. Then you have the early 80's T-80BV, similar to the above these would have been the poorer condition vehicles that didn't get upgrades. 160 destroyed/captured. Then you get into the stuff from the 70's and early 80's that wasn't retained in service after the fall. This is the newest and most capable stuff that would have been pulled out of long term storage. T-72A and T-72AV's with only around 45 destroyed/captured. T-64A's and T-64BVs with only around 40 destroyed/captured. Finally, you get into the truly old stuff that was already dated bottom-of-the barrel reserve division stuff when the USSR fell. T-62M and T-62MV with only 39 destroyed/captured. In summary, while they had a bunch of "on paper" old tanks in storage, with older generations of T-72 and T-64 actually having been produced and stored in much greater numbers than the newer stuff, in practice the breakdown of vehicles they could throw into service skewed heavily toward those less numerous models that were kept in service post-USSR. Very few things thrown into long term storage have been returned to service, while even the older stuff that was kept in service post-USSR appears to be in relative disrepair. Now factor in the effort to renovate the T-62's versus the 70's era T-64s and T-72s which just... don't seem to be appearing. These tanks were produced and stored in gigantic numbers but they're apparently not an option even for a serious refurb effort compared to the significantly older and less capable vehicles. This implies, to me, that the T-72 and T-64 fleet in storage was serving as a source of parts for the active duty vehicles and export market, leaving them not only rotting but missing enough important bits that they realistically cannot be restored. The T-62 didn't see much export success or post-USSR domestic use, so those would have been less likely to be stripped for parts. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 02:14 on Nov 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2022 02:04
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:yeah 500 tons is more along the lines of a large commercial fishing boat than what people normally think of as a warship. ...500 tons is right about WWI era destroyers, modulo my confusion over the funny kinds of tons naval people use. Edit: off by a world war. My memory sucks. Ignore me. OddObserver fucked around with this message at 02:24 on Nov 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2022 02:21
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:my confusion over the funny kinds of tons naval people use. 2000 lbs -short ton, ST 2240 lbs - long ton, LT 1000 kgs - metric ton, MT, 1 m^3 of water at 1.0000 apparent density in air at 15C Cargo Carrying capacity in MT at summer marks - DWT 100 cu. ft internal volume - 1 gross register ton (which isn’t a weight but is a volume GRT - non cargo spaces = NRT NRT and GRT are now technically unit less though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2022 02:30
|
|
|
Sekenr posted:The insider reports Estonian border guards being mega assholes to fleeing Ukranian and refusing entry Not the first time this happened either. There were reports by Russian volunteers who help Ukrainian refugees in Russia to escape to Europe of Estonian border guards being picky about what Ukrainian citizens to allow in back in August.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2022 02:41
|
|
|
Yeah, the Russian mega tank stockpile numbers need to be taken with a huge grain of salt, most obviously because if they were true they would be nowhere near having to dip into the T-62 shitbox stores. Yet here we are. It's some mix of never existed, so poorly maintained they're ruined now, cannibalized for parts over the decades until they're often bare hulls, and sold for booze.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2022 04:25
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:Yeah, the Russian mega tank stockpile numbers need to be taken with a huge grain of salt, most obviously because if they were true they would be nowhere near having to dip into the T-62 shitbox stores. Yet here we are. Imagine any metal vehicle sitting in the elements for 30 years and then imagine the effect that naked corruption has on their continued care. THEN consider how much part scavenging, legally and for black market sales, is going on. And then remember that even if these stockpiles are in working condition you still need to ship them to the front where they're needed. It's a complete clusterfuck. One of the most frustrating things about this war will be how we will never truly know the extent of the disaster behind the scenes. Russia sure as poo poo isn't going to let people know.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2022 04:35
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:Yeah, the Russian mega tank stockpile numbers need to be taken with a huge grain of salt, most obviously because if they were true they would be nowhere near having to dip into the T-62 shitbox stores. Yet here we are. doesn't contain any such doohickeys (or modern sights, or really anything that's worth money or complex), they can reach a baseline combat readiness with much less work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2022 04:50
|
|
|
Does Russia have any versions of T55s they can use if they really start running out of tanks or have they all been sent to the scrapheap?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2022 04:54
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:Does Russia have any versions of T55s they can use if they really start running out of tanks or have they all been sent to the scrapheap? I think they claim to have sold or scrapped all the remaining ones but IIRC they claimed the same thing about the T-62 and here we are.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2022 05:36
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:500 tons displacement is a boat. 500t is the displacement of an early dreadnought era torpedo boat destroyer
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2022 05:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 04:00 |
|
|
You also need to remember that they need to keep a set amount of tanks and what not staged elsewhere for national defense as well. They got a lot of land and borders to defend. Them dipping into T-62s means they have hit their limit on what they can spare of the newer, more capable stuff. It is going to be real interesting to see what the Russian military will look like come Spring as a lot of their material is going to fail during the winter months due to age and being unable to properly maintain it in the cold.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2022 06:18
|
|
