|
Ynglaur posted:Yes, but 75kg is enough to make a very large shotgun shell. Shoving a couple hundred steel bearings through a plane fuselage will make it inoperable for a long time. 75 kg of explosives is also 7-15 antitank mines, depending on the model you are using, so if you get them anywhere nearish the targeted planes the shrapnel damage alone is more than enough to put few of them out of commission. And most likely Russians aren't getting spare parts anymore to those planes either, so each plane is one less that can fly, or one set of spares they no longer have.
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2022 16:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 16:05 |
|
|
Der Kyhe posted:And most likely Russians aren't getting spare parts anymore to those planes either, so each plane is one less that can fly, or one set of spares they no longer have. But also a whole new crop of spares!
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2022 17:03
|
|
|
MikeC posted:Russia did plan, they just didn't tell the troops or commanders of the primary objective of the said plan until 9 hours beforehand. Back in v1 of this thread, I had speculated that the invasion was an off-the-cuff decision when negotiations broke down since no one would be that unprepared. Now we know for sure that the invasion was preplanned months in advance but the orders literally didn't go down to commanders until the night before. I'm sorry, but your argument appears internally inconsistent. On one hand, you claim that modern military warfare - from the Cold War period onwards, in fact, not just in the 21st century - is so devastatingly lethal, especially in the event of a technological mismatch, that long strategic logistical tails are both unnecessary and an excessive expense as wars are decided in decisive opening clashes. On the other hand, however, you claim that the Ukrainians are not a peer opponent to Russia, that in fact Russia should benefit from the advantages of a technological mismatch in modern warfare. By the logic you present, the Ukrainian Armed Forces should have not merely been defeated in the opening weeks of the war, but decisively swept off the board to become a non-factor in the style of the Arab-Israeli Wars not only because of the superiority of Russian arms but because of the inherent lethality of modern warfare. But this self-evidently didn't actually happen. Yes, the Ukrainian military may have been suffering from ammunition shortages and would have been defeated without Western supply of such, but "We can still fight, we're just out of ammo" isn't exactly the kind of sweeping decisive defeat you're painting modern warfare to be comprised of. Even WITH a shortage of ammunition and war stocks, in the period before Western arms and ammo began arriving in sufficient quantities to have an impact the Ukrainians had turned the war into a brutal, grinding slog for Russia where Russian advances, while steady, were also slow and painful and required enormous expenditures of ammunition. You argue that precision munitions for Ukraine is what allowed them to turn the tide around and gain the initiative, but it is notable that even WITH such new ammunition and equipment, the Ukrainians STILL can't utterly dominate the Russians and immediately crush their forces at will - advances still need a great deal of planning, preparation, and the use of built-up stocks of supplies (including those very PGMs!) Now you're not wrong that even with the advantages of precision weapons they come at a cost that may make it difficult to build a large supply chain, but in a very real sense that's a political issue, not a military one. From a military perspective the question is solely whether or not a given setup can win a given war, and RUSI seems to believe that you need both PGMs AND good military-industrial logistics to be fully prepared for a modern peer conflict. Whether or not society can afford that is something for politicians to decide, and if they make a cut somewhere then they'll have to accept the trade-offs, whatever they may be. It may be that investing in a few, highly expensive weapons systems is a good choice for Western nations, but they'll have to accept the trade-off that if they can't win in the first few weeks they'll be forced to admit defeat, and that such long wars may very well be the case if they anticipate a war against a peer opponent. Political realities may dictate how to respond to military realities but they don't actually change those military realities, and those military realities are what's being discussed here (though I will say in passing that the entire Ukrainian conflict may very well be shifting politics all across NATO to loosen pursestrings in favor of military investment). Fundamentally you're making the case that modern peer warfare is sufficiently lethal that decisive victory by one side or another should be gained before ammunition shortages have become an issue, but that's just not how Ukraine is playing out right now. The entire conflict does not appear to support your assertion that modern warfare is always decisively lethal, nor that superior technology can by itself obsolete the need for ammunition stocks and the wartime production thereof. This does not mean that EVERY modern conflict must necessarily follow the Ukrainian model - a hypothetical war over Taiwan with its reliance on naval assets with long build-up times would likely follow a different logic - but it does seem like an important factor to consider for future wars. More concretely and relevantly to the current war, it does seem like wunderwaffe aren't going to end the war for Ukraine either - there does in fact need to be a consistent, sustained supply of industrial logistics to keep Ukraine in the fight, and while advanced NATO arms make a critical difference it's still going to require boots on the ground, blood in the mud and ticks of the clock to grind out a victory. And if, as the original article triggering this whole debate says, even the US has trouble building up a sufficient supply chain to give Ukraine victory, that does raise questions about the credibility of NATO defense spending in the event of a peer conflict, which in turn may embolden NATO rivals like China.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2022 17:04
|
|
|
So this is why a mere BMP was able to shove around a bunch of "anti tank obstacles". They were actually hollow shells filled with copium. https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop/status/1600151315371347968
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2022 17:04
|
|
|
Groverteeth
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2022 17:16
|
|
|
golden bubble posted:So this is why a mere BMP was able to shove around a bunch of "anti tank obstacles". They were actually hollow shells filled with copium. Grovium Never stop being terrible, russia, you crazy conflict diamond. https://www.theguardian.com/world/l...re_iOSApp_Other Shock and surprise, they're claiming the AFU are shelling a nuclear power plant and using that as a disqualifier for talks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2022 17:35
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/bradyafr/status/1600141834814033921 Strategic bombing/sabotage campaign continues. Probably not enough to really do anything, certainly sends a message though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2022 17:42
|
|
|
Telsa Cola posted:Imo the balloon bombs got their notoriety because they were an absolutely "what the gently caress" thing for the American public and were the cause for the only civilian causilities in contentinetal US. The British operation of a similar nature, Operation Outward, was much more successful. Probably because it's much easier to spam balloons when the enemy are just a few miles away across the Channel.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2022 17:48
|
|
|
golden bubble posted:So this is why a mere BMP was able to shove around a bunch of "anti tank obstacles". They were actually hollow shells filled with copium. Oh dear lord, just when you thought they were crap they go and make it worse. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2022 18:18
|
|
|
golden bubble posted:So this is why a mere BMP was able to shove around a bunch of "anti tank obstacles". They were actually hollow shells filled with copium. That explains why they were able to load like 30 of them on a regular flatbed truck of the type typically used by professional gardeners and landscapers. I can't find the old photo in a super quick search, but I remember the trucks having way too many of them to be full of concrete. E: There was this one  but I remember seeing a photo of like a regular F-150 sized truck with several of those in the back. I don't know enough about trucking or concrete weight to know if the ones in that particular photo have to be hollow. Saladman fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Dec 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2022 18:22
|
|
|
Are...are those hollow? I cant easily tell from the photo. No rebar either by the looks, so you could just take a sledgehammer to one and break it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2022 18:35
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Are...are those hollow? Is it possible to fleece money or construction materials out of this Russian government project by making them hollow? Listen to your heart, you know the answer. (They are thin sheets of concrete held in place by a sheet metal teepee.) Der Kyhe fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Dec 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2022 18:37
|
|
|
Could some of our German folks comment on the original story? (The Twitter is probably best described as a ... flakey... source) https://mobile.twitter.com/noclador/status/1600181105549713408
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2022 19:03
|
|
|
Der Kyhe posted:Is it possible to fleece money or construction materials out of this Russian government project by making them hollow? Listen to your heart, you know the answer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2022 19:14
|
|
|
According to that article, the US didnīt ask the Germans to deliver them but made it clear they are ok with it. Whereas Scholz has given the impression it is not ok to just go ahead with delivering them without also consulting with NATO partners. Incidentally, members of the German government have claimed that Scholz specifically forbade Spain to send their Leopard tanks...
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2022 19:20
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:Could some of our German folks comment on the original story? (The Twitter is probably best described as a ... flakey... source) Where do you even find such a cretin? Like, I know Twitter users are impossibly stupid, but come on. KingaSlipek posted:According to that article, the US didnīt ask the Germans to deliver them but made it clear they are ok with it. Whereas Scholz has given the impression it is not ok to just go ahead with delivering them without also consulting with NATO partners. Incidentally, members of the German government have claimed that Scholz specifically forbade Spain to send their Leopard tanks... Then they'd be lying, because Spain never asked to export their tanks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2022 19:22
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:Could some of our German folks comment on the original story? (The Twitter is probably best described as a ... flakey... source) The Twitter guy is bullshitting, but so is Scholz. Scholz doesn’t want to expose Germany by being the first one to send Western tanks, and hides behind a spurious argument that the US isn't sending tanks either. He "absolutely would send tanks if the Americans did it first, because he's ready to act in conjunction with Germany’s closest allies." He conveniently ignores all the logistical and maintenance arguments that speak to Leo 2 being the best Western tanks for Ukraine to standardize on. Hannibal Rex fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Dec 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2022 19:22
|
|
|
Antigravitas posted:Where do you even find such a cretin? Like, I know Twitter users are impossibly stupid, but come on. Maybe, but how do you know other members from the same government are telling the truth?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2022 19:28
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:Could some of our German folks comment on the original story? (The Twitter is probably best described as a ... flakey... source) Oh, a no-name Twitter man, lying. I am surprised. Antigravitas posted:Where do you even find such a cretin? Like, I know Twitter users are impossibly stupid, but come on. Claiming Scholz can just "forbade" Spain anything is on the same level as claiming Scholz can "forbade" Biden from sending Abrams
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2022 19:29
|
|
|
There's no source for the one photo or any other commentary it seems, so it's not out of the question that it's just one or two in a batch of thousands that they didn't fully fill up with concrete. Or if you want to be super polite to Wagner (because they sure deserve it), maybe they were clever and planned for the eventual successful big counter-offensive with hollow obstacles on their pre-laid attack routes! IT'S POSSIBLE (not likely though)
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2022 19:30
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Oh, a no-name Twitter man, lying. I am surprised. Are Abrams German tanks? Jesus Christ
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2022 19:30
|
|
|
Closing arguments only as per CinciTomn posted:I'm sorry, but your argument appears internally inconsistent. On one hand, you claim that modern military warfare - from the Cold War period onwards, in fact, not just in the 21st century - is so devastatingly lethal, especially in the event of a technological mismatch, that long strategic logistical tails are both unnecessary and an excessive expense as wars are decided in decisive opening clashes. On the other hand, however, you claim that the Ukrainians are not a peer opponent to Russia, that in fact Russia should benefit from the advantages of a technological mismatch in modern warfare. By the logic you present, the Ukrainian Armed Forces should have not merely been defeated in the opening weeks of the war, but decisively swept off the board to become a non-factor in the style of the Arab-Israeli Wars not only because of the superiority of Russian arms but because of the inherent lethality of modern warfare. The reasons for this are clear though and need not be rehashed in detail which have nothing to do with modern war at a peer level. In short, the Russians based their plans on faulty intelligence wrt to Ukrainian will to fight, the UAF's capabilities and mobilization potential, institutional corruption, and forcing commanders to execute a plan of attack on 9 hours notice with no preparation or rehearsal at any level. Perrun succinctly noted back in March that the Russian Army was all being, no basics. Tomn posted:But this self-evidently didn't actually happen. Yes, the Ukrainian military may have been suffering from ammunition shortages and would have been defeated without Western supply of such, but "We can still fight, we're just out of ammo" isn't exactly the kind of sweeping decisive defeat you're painting modern warfare to be comprised of. Even WITH a shortage of ammunition and war stocks, in the period before Western arms and ammo began arriving in sufficient quantities to have an impact the Ukrainians had turned the war into a brutal, grinding slog for Russia where Russian advances, while steady, were also slow and painful and required enormous expenditures of ammunition. You argue that precision munitions for Ukraine is what allowed them to turn the tide around and gain the initiative, but it is notable that even WITH such new ammunition and equipment, the Ukrainians STILL can't utterly dominate the Russians and immediately crush their forces at will - advances still need a great deal of planning, preparation, and the use of built-up stocks of supplies (including those very PGMs!) PGMs can only take you so far if you do not have the means to leverage it. Despite great strides made by the Ukrainians in arming their Territorials and Reserve units to the point that they can participate in offensive action in concert with the comparatively few Regular formations, it can't be argued that they are on NATO levels of efficiency. I cannot prove a counterfactual but I don't think my belief that if NATO ground and air forces were committed at any point in time during the war, Russia would have faced total conventional defeat within Ukraine in a matter of weeks. This is a Ukrainian military competence issue, not a PGMs aren't performing as advertised issue. Tomn posted:Now you're not wrong that even with the advantages of precision weapons they come at a cost that may make it difficult to build a large supply chain, but in a very real sense that's a political issue, not a military one. From a military perspective the question is solely whether or not a given setup can win a given war, and RUSI seems to believe that you need both PGMs AND good military-industrial logistics to be fully prepared for a modern peer conflict. Whether or not society can afford that is something for politicians to decide, and if they make a cut somewhere then they'll have to accept the trade-offs, whatever they may be. It may be that investing in a few, highly expensive weapons systems is a good choice for Western nations, but they'll have to accept the trade-off that if they can't win in the first few weeks they'll be forced to admit defeat, and that such long wars may very well be the case if they anticipate a war against a peer opponent. Political realities may dictate how to respond to military realities but they don't actually change those military realities, and those military realities are what's being discussed here (though I will say in passing that the entire Ukrainian conflict may very well be shifting politics all across NATO to loosen pursestrings in favor of military investment). A fact that I readily acknowledged given unlimited resources to spend. Ex. The perfect world would still see the United States cranking out F22s with enough backup air frames to sustain the USAF against any and all possibilities. Instead the USAF is stuck with a limited supply and an ever shrinking fleet. Same goes for the cutbacks in the F35 procurement or any number of advanced weapon systems procured by modern militaries. Military realities are predicated on how much funding is allocated to them. The dog wags the tail, not the other way around. Tomn posted:Fundamentally you're making the case that modern peer warfare is sufficiently lethal that decisive victory by one side or another should be gained before ammunition shortages have become an issue, but that's just not how Ukraine is playing out right now. The entire conflict does not appear to support your assertion that modern warfare is always decisively lethal, nor that superior technology can by itself obsolete the need for ammunition stocks and the wartime production thereof. This does not mean that EVERY modern conflict must necessarily follow the Ukrainian model - a hypothetical war over Taiwan with its reliance on naval assets with long build-up times would likely follow a different logic - but it does seem like an important factor to consider for future wars. More concretely and relevantly to the current war, it does seem like wunderwaffe aren't going to end the war for Ukraine either - there does in fact need to be a consistent, sustained supply of industrial logistics to keep Ukraine in the fight, and while advanced NATO arms make a critical difference it's still going to require boots on the ground, blood in the mud and ticks of the clock to grind out a victory. The Politico article was essentially one of the economics of war so how can you divest your argument to one purely in the military realm? My original response was to a poster who claimed that not having slack capabilities to ramp up production was dumb because it was more costly right? I responded that modern wars are exceptionally lethal and it is not economically reasonable to spend the amount of money required to maintain this slack capacity. No MIC contractor is going to pay for this capacity if it is not used. Now you might argue you can maintain slack production on cheaper items but my counterpoint is that in a peer conflict, cheaper stuff isn't going to cut it as replacements (see Russian cold war stocks vs limited supply of NATO gear) if your front line equipment is expended and if it isn't a peer conflict, you are going to steam roll them anyways if you have a competently trained and equipped army as the US has done repeatedly during the past 30 years. In short, in a world where everyone has a budget, you spend your budget in such a way which maximizes short term effectiveness and try to win fast because the alternative is spending it on cheaper and less effective alternatives which increases the potential for long wars and massive casualties on your part if you are the one not on the cutting edge. Remember one of the factors leading to the dissolution of the Soviet Union was over allocation of their economy on their military. If you wish to discuss further PM me your venue of choice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2022 19:31
|
|
|
KingaSlipek posted:According to that article, the US didnīt ask the Germans to deliver them but made it clear they are ok with it. Whereas Scholz has given the impression it is not ok to just go ahead with delivering them without also consulting with NATO partners. Incidentally, members of the German government have claimed that Scholz specifically forbade Spain to send their Leopard tanks... Of course you have a source for this, who are those "government members"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2022 19:31
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Of course you have a source for this, who are those "government members"? People from the same party as you, The Greens Sorry, source is in German
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2022 19:37
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Oh, a no-name Twitter man, lying. I am surprised. More than no-name. This guy famously wrote an article about how Russia could not invade Ukraine... several hours after Russia invaded Ukraine https://euromaidanpress.com/2014/02/27/an-invasion-of-the-mind/
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2022 19:43
|
|
|
There's a huge aircraft boneyard in Arizona where the airforce keeps hundreds of planes in various states of mothball. They have quite a few B52s there. On a few occasions when a B52 has crashed or caught on fire they have been replaced with one of the airframes pulled from the boneyard. It's the only way to replace a B52 at this point since I think the last one was built in the 60s. Does Russia have anything like this for Tu95s? Because if one of them was damaged beyond repair in the attack on Engels airbase I imagine the only way they can replace it is with a mothballed airframe but I'm not sure if they have any. I doubt any have been built in a very long time just like the B52.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2022 19:45
|
|
|
Wait are those dragons teeth hollow? E: I'm thinking they are like welded pieces of steel plate and then filled with concrete but I don't know why you would basically putty the outside of them?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2022 19:48
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:There's a huge aircraft boneyard in Arizona where the airforce keeps hundreds of planes in various states of mothball. They have quite a few B52s there. On a few occasions when a B52 has crashed or caught on fire they have been replaced with one of the airframes pulled from the boneyard. It's the only way to replace a B52 at this point since I think the last one was built in the 60s. The "cryosphere" covers most of Russia https://eldoradoweather.com/climate/world-maps/world-snow-ice-cover.html so those huge boneyards do not work there, fortunately. Unless they actually take care of doing cursory maintenance work and at least having some cover against the snowfall and freezing conditions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2022 19:55
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:There's a huge aircraft boneyard in Arizona where the airforce keeps hundreds of planes in various states of mothball. They have quite a few B52s there. On a few occasions when a B52 has crashed or caught on fire they have been replaced with one of the airframes pulled from the boneyard. It's the only way to replace a B52 at this point since I think the last one was built in the 60s. cr0y posted:Wait are those dragons teeth hollow?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2022 19:55
|
|
|
Reminds me of those early "war tips" spec ops guys were giving to Ukrainian civilians like, "Paint a set of plates black and lay them face down on the road so they look like mines. They will slow down the enemy advance." But with the "World's Second Army" using dinner plates.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2022 19:58
|
|
|
Deserts make it extremely easy to store stuff in the open due to hot dry climate doing a good job of preserving things that don't melt inside of a car. Cold wet climates are the exact opposite and anything left outside in that will rust/corrode from the inside out quickly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2022 19:58
|
|
|
FishBulbia posted:More than no-name. This guy famously wrote an article about how Russia could not invade Ukraine... several hours after Russia invaded Ukraine I am not sure why people keep talking about this guy, when the source was a German mainstream medium site that does solid reporting. Besides, he did not say Russia could not invade (in 2014), but rather that Putin wouldnīt do it because it would be stupid.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2022 20:05
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Groverteeth  This bears re-posting, and I'll eat a sixer if that's the price.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2022 22:40
|
|
|
Just Another Lurker posted:Oh dear lord, just when you thought they were crap they go and make it worse. The imaginot line turned out to be a surprisingly accurate title.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2022 23:05
|
|
|
Hannibal Rex posted:He conveniently ignores all the logistical and maintenance arguments that speak to Leo 2 being the best Western tanks for Ukraine to standardize on. I don't think that's true. There are just not that many Leo2's available, and they are a mismash of different variants with different upgrade kits on them. In contrast, there are >1000 usable M1A1's in US depots that could already be in Ukraine if they started reconditioning them when the war started.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2022 01:00
|
|
|
ChaseSP posted:Deserts make it extremely easy to store stuff in the open due to hot dry climate doing a good job of preserving things that don't melt inside of a car. Cold wet climates are the exact opposite and anything left outside in that will rust/corrode from the inside out quickly. The US boneyard in Tucson actually has to waterproof anything they might ever want a spare part from. Every summer in Tucson is Monsoon Season, which means 2-4 inches of rain and high winds for about two months straight.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2022 01:27
|
|
|
FishBulbia posted:https://twitter.com/bradyafr/status/1600141834814033921 There's probably more political and physiological impact to these drone strikes than a purely negative military impact. As others have said, it's one less available bomber and one more problem for the Russians to deal with. It's a cumulative effect, and Ukraine needs every win/positive thing it can get. It's (understandably) is throwing almost literally everything they have at Russia and trying to be smart about what, when and how they do it as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2022 01:51
|
|
|
Tuna-Fish posted:I don't think that's true. There are just not that many Leo2's available, and they are a mismash of different variants with different upgrade kits on them. I'm not a tanker, I can only tell you what I've been hearing, which is that the Abrams requires much more extensive maintenance training and also more fuel and other logistics. Petraeus has been pushing for the Leo 2 instead of the Abrams recently, as has the ECFR. Maybe the German arms industry has just been lobbying harder. https://youtu.be/1ndxe9z_ru4 https://ecfr.eu/article/the-leopard-plan-how-european-tanks-can-help-ukraine-take-back-its-territory/
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2022 02:10
|
|
|
Hannibal Rex posted:I'm not a tanker, I can only tell you what I've been hearing, which is that the Abrams requires much more extensive maintenance training and also more fuel and other logistics. Petraeus has been pushing for the Leo 2 instead of the Abrams recently, as has the ECFR. Maybe the German arms industry has just been lobbying harder. What about teaming up with Poland and sourcing K2s?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2022 02:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 16:05 |
|
|
Hannibal Rex posted:Petraeus has been pushing for the Leo 2 instead of the Abrams recently, I think that just proves the Germans sent an attractive saleswoman. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2022 02:23
|
|