|
aphid_licker posted:Dumb question, what's the Russian idiom that's always translated with "direction", and is it new? I never noticed it before the maps in this war started going this happened in the city1 direction and that happened in the city2 direction. But I admittedly read basically no Russian. Is there something to it beyond just being the Russian way of saying "in the x region"? "Upravleniye" can mean government or administration and gets translated as "direction" sometimes?
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2022 18:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 09:53 |
|
|
Neorxenawang posted:Not a native speaker, but I'm pretty sure it's literally "in the direction of X," ie "going towards X." Yeah this. it just means attacks in the direction of/directed towards that particular settlement.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2022 18:59
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Dumb question, what's the Russian idiom that's always translated with "direction", and is it new? I never noticed it before the maps in this war started going this happened in the city1 direction and that happened in the city2 direction. But I admittedly read basically no Russian. Is there something to it beyond just being the Russian way of saying "in the x region"? В направлении - literally in the direction of, think maps with arrows on the front pointing at the direction of where troops are shooting towards. Means like you said in the region
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2022 18:59
|
|
|
Libluini posted:I haven't seen this mentioned yet: I've been keeping an eye on our grid because of the fears that we'd have blackouts around EU as well. But it seems that whenever the wind is blowing a decent amount (and it's not mega cold), there's a good amount of surplus we could be producing. France for example reduced the nuclear output by 10GW from the peak while Ukraine is using around 18GW on average (https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Statistics/Statistical_Profiles/Europe/Ukraine_Europe_RE_SP.pdf), so seems like that could be exported to cover any gaps caused by russians. Or is the issue more with distribution?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2022 19:11
|
|
|
I think the Russian target the stuff like transformers as well, not just power plants, and there is only so much transmission capacity at the border with Poland, too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2022 19:12
|
|
|
Somaen posted:В направлении - literally in the direction of, think maps with arrows on the front pointing at the direction of where troops are shooting towards. Means like you said in the region Neat, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2022 23:10
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Why would F-16s be treated differently from every single other major weapon system? The US has been pretty transparent with major weapon assistance, when it comes to reporting divestitures and expenses to congress and the American people. Electric Wrigglies posted:Yeah, I don't know if it feasible to sneak in F16s of any number without Russia working it out on their own. The Russians probably train and wargame fighting against F16's in any event. What's the element of suprise meant to achieve? Allow F16 attacks where Mig29's/SU27s can't strike now? Attempt to down a Bear loitering hundreds (>thousand?) of km behind the lines? Well one of the big reasons to keep it quiet until you can't anymore is compared to Soviet-era aircraft is that the F-16 is going to require a lot of kit to fly them and keep them airworthy that will likely only be stationed at a couple of airbases at most, at least at first. You want to keep that equipment and more importantly the trained manpower as safe as possible until you can get things staged and defended. It would take a few weeks at least to get things up and running. You would have a giant target on that location in the meantime. That being said the Ukrainians have kept their aircraft safe and airworthy so far. I am sure the story there is going to be REAL interesting in the future.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2022 00:46
|
|
|
I understand why Ukraine might like to keep things secret. I meant why would the US suddenly change its policy on informing congress and the public about our weapons proliferation? With something so big and obvious as F-16s? I do not think that the US would treat F-16s as some black project given how visibly the US treated GMLRS-firing weapons, artillery, etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2022 00:50
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:I understand why Ukraine might like to keep things secret. I meant why would the US suddenly change its policy on informing congress and the public about our weapons proliferation? With something so big and obvious as F-16s? I do not think that the US would treat F-16s as some black project given how visibly the US treated GMLRS-firing weapons, artillery, etc. Well I believe there is some history of the US and others not announcing stuff is in Ukrainian hands until it is already staged in country, for example HIMARS and GMLRS rounds. Like you can't keep them secret forever but you can keep it secret until they are staged and operational. Once they are flying around it would be impossible to keep them quiet at that point. It isn't like the US isn't going to shout from the rooftops that they are there after the fact either.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2022 01:13
|
|
|
Djarum posted:Well I believe there is some history of the US and others not announcing stuff is in Ukrainian hands until it is already staged in country, for example HIMARS and GMLRS rounds. No, HIMARS and GMLRS were announced publicly more than two weeks before they were under Ukrainian control or even inside Ukraine. E: it was more like 3+ weeks. Sources: https://www.defense.gov/News/News-S...ided%20rockets. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/us-long-range-rocket-systems-arrive-ukraine-minister-2022-06-23/
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2022 01:21
|
|
|
Volodymyr Yezhov, one of the developers of S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Clear Sky, was killed in Bakhmut. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=696zMTbrAFM
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2022 06:59
|
|
|
Djarum posted:Well I believe there is some history of the US and others not announcing stuff is in Ukrainian hands until it is already staged in country, for example HIMARS and GMLRS rounds. Like you can't keep them secret forever but you can keep it secret until they are staged and operational. Once they are flying around it would be impossible to keep them quiet at that point. It isn't like the US isn't going to shout from the rooftops that they are there after the fact either. The only "surprise" delivery that I can recall were HARMs which were officially revealed (even with a video from UA pilot showing the tablet in a Mig cockpit) after Russians posted identifiable fragments following a hit on their radar.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2022 07:24
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Andric1961/status/1606231490496544768?t=6GP-MZcRhwVCYW_oH3v3Eg&s=19 A very interesting thread on Russians in Belgrade.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2022 08:45
|
|
|
Didn't the UK only acknowledge brimstone delivery to ukraine after they were delivered and operational? Alongside the silly pr video showing part of the logistics process
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2022 09:47
|
|
|
fatherboxx posted:The only "surprise" delivery that I can recall were HARMs which were officially revealed (even with a video from UA pilot showing the tablet in a Mig cockpit) after Russians posted identifiable fragments following a hit on their radar. And even then, the US had previously announced counter-radar systems, but didn’t name them. So various people assumed some form of jamming or direction finding.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2022 14:53
|
|
|
Hannibal Rex posted:https://twitter.com/Andric1961/status/1606231490496544768?t=6GP-MZcRhwVCYW_oH3v3Eg&s=19 Fascinating. It will be interesting to see what, if any, impact this has on Serbian politics. mlmp08 posted:And even then, the US had previously announced counter-radar systems, but didn’t name them. So various people assumed some form of jamming or direction finding. Good point, I can't imagine there's any prior announcement that F-16s could be covered under. Doesn't mean the US won't change it's approach, of course, but I think you're right that it's unlikely to do so for something like this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2022 16:11
|
|
|
Also the odds of the US "sneaking" something in that will be identified as a US or NATO airplane is slim and none. It would be tremendously dangerous to confuse the Russians that way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2022 16:31
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Also the odds of the US "sneaking" something in that will be identified as a US or NATO airplane is slim and none. It would be tremendously dangerous to confuse the Russians that way. In the end, they would only be fooling domestic audiences by trying to hide something like that. Providing any meaningful amount of aircraft means training so many pilots and mechanics that you couldn't keep it under the lid for long.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2022 16:43
|
|
|
Washington Post has another long article, this time about the two counter-offensives: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/12/29/ukraine-offensive-kharkiv-kherson-donetsk/ Some highlights, chosen at random because I found them interesting: quote:This reconstruction of the Kharkiv and Kherson counteroffensives is based on interviews with more than 35 people, including Ukrainian commanders, officials in Kyiv and combat troops, as well as senior U.S. and European military and political officials. quote:In the last days of August, Syrsky met in a large operations room in Ukraine’s east with his top aides and key brigade commanders. Before them was a 520-square-foot 3D-printed terrain map of the part of the Kharkiv region occupied by Russia. quote:U.S. intelligence helped ration the ammunition through accurate targeting. After many months, according to U.S. and Ukrainian officials, the two partners had worked out a real-time regimen: The Ukrainians would outline the types of high-value targets they were looking for in an area, and the United States would use its vast geospatial intelligence apparatus to respond with precise locations. quote:On Sept. 6, just past 3:30 a.m., Oleh’s company of about 100 soldiers, part of the 25th Airborne Assault Brigade, began to advance in small columns of three infantry fighting vehicles each. For hours before they started to move, Ukrainian artillerymen had been pounding Russian positions with U.S.-made M270 multiple launch rocket systems. quote:When Oleh’s company entered central Izyum, having made it there without any losses, the troops were dumbfounded at what lay before them: Tanks in working order, ready to be driven. Abandoned artillery pieces, ready to be fired. Fuel tankers “filled up to the eyeballs.” Tons of ammunition and light weapons. quote:Responsibility for that difficult stretch of front, northwest of Kherson, fell to Col. Vadym Sukharevsky, commander of the 59th Motorized Infantry Brigade. quote:Sukharevsky said he credits Ukraine’s victory partly to the artillery systems, guided munitions and long-range rocket launchers sent by the West, which eventually wore down a Russian force already low on ammunition and struggling with supply lines. quote:Ignatenko, the regional politician and Kherson shipping magnate serving in the 59th Brigade, sent a drone up over the river and found one of his barges half-submerged near the Antonovsky Bridge, but others were missing. Moon Slayer fucked around with this message at 19:13 on Dec 29, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2022 18:53
|
|
|
So Russia bombarded Ukraine again overnight with missiles. Russia's missile reserves have to be getting really low by now right? Right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2022 20:12
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/Maks_NAFO_FELLA/status/1608453679564353536 Is there any reliable information about this besides a random telegram account? Or was it more likely just a Ukranian drone
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2022 20:23
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:So Russia bombarded Ukraine again overnight with missiles. Russia's missile reserves have to be getting really low by now right? Right? There's no way to tell.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2022 20:32
|
|
|
Willo567 posted:https://mobile.twitter.com/Maks_NAFO_FELLA/status/1608453679564353536 The biggest reason I'm skeptical isn't because I don't think Russia would be so incompetent to shoot down their own jet 800km from the Ukrainian border, but because I can't see them admitting to it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2022 20:34
|
|
|
Most of the accounts I saw tweeting this have since removed it saying it's too unreliable and unlikely to have actually happened.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2022 20:44
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:So Russia bombarded Ukraine again overnight with missiles. Russia's missile reserves have to be getting really low by now right? Right? They have been low for a long time. Otherwise, there would have been more than the 60-something missiles and/or there would be less time between these attacks. They will not run out, "click, empty chamber"-style, in any remotely near future, if ever. That's just not how these things work. I also feel a bit weird when western media hyper-focuses on this missile barrage when plenty of Ukrainian cities, towns and villages are being shelled on a daily basis and thus being the target of far more destruction than what these missile attacks create. But I can't blame Ukraine that they're trying to maximize the information war potential of these strikes (ie using them to increase support abroad). Missiles are a much more tangible and evocative symbol of remote destructive power than the shells of mortars and howitzers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2022 20:46
|
|
|
This would be great https://twitter.com/KSwaggest/status/1608570302383984643
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2022 01:07
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:This would be great Been shouting this into the internet ether for a year now. I hope it happens.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2022 04:08
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:Been shouting this into the internet ether for a year now. I hope it happens. I know they’re very different kind of vehicles, but whenever the issue of supplying M1’s to Ukraine comes up, people say that there would be a lot of problems regarding training tankers/maintenance crews and supply of spare parts/ammo. Isn’t this the same with a Bradley? Or is it technically a much simpler vehicle?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2022 11:27
|
|
|
mrfart posted:I know they’re very different kind of vehicles, but whenever the issue of supplying M1’s to Ukraine comes up, people say that there would be a lot of problems regarding training tankers/maintenance crews and supply of spare parts/ammo. Isn’t this the same with a Bradley? Or is it technically a much simpler vehicle? I think a big thing with Abrhams is they are heavy, more likely to get bogged and break bridges/hard to recover, etc and consume huge quantities of fuel compared to a T72. Bradleys are much lighter, more economical with reciprocating diesel engines and still come with a lot of sensors that would add large value on the battlefield from an overwatch position that both sides are reportedly using armoured vehicles for a lot. Not sure a Bradley is going to be that much worse off against a Kornet attack either.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2022 12:10
|
|
|
Think of it as getting a go-kart vs. a big truck with which you participate in demolition derby races. The kart might occasionally bump against a competitor on track, but over all it's not its core purpose. Meanwhile the demolition truck is going to face serious wear and tear, not only from crashes but because it's so big and heavy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2022 12:14
|
|
|
The main value of having Abrams or some other western tank for Ukraine is in crew survivability. No tank is indestructible but Soviet tanks have a tendency to blow up catastrophically and take all crew with them. Losing experienced tankers is worse than losing the vehicle.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2022 12:18
|
|
|
Think it would be really good for Ukraine logistically to have a one size fits all vehicle that we can theoretically send a thousand of. Bradley has sensors, bit of armor, bit of gun, atgms, it just seems like a compelling package E: how many Bradleys are in storage anyway? aphid_licker fucked around with this message at 13:12 on Dec 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2022 13:07
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:The main value of having Abrams or some other western tank for Ukraine is in crew survivability. No tank is indestructible but Soviet tanks have a tendency to blow up catastrophically and take all crew with them. Losing experienced tankers is worse than losing the vehicle. People say that a lot but look at the numbers. T72 is going to (with made up numbers for arguments sake) casualty three/ two /one /none 30/10/30/30% for eg and an Abrams is going to be 5/5/10/30/50% (for four / three / two / one / none, respectively). Say there is over 1,000 tanks in service that get rubbed out with penetrating hits, it is at most three thousand soldier casualties if every tank blew up which is not remotely the case but more likely 2,000 versus say 700 or so for Abrams. At the same time Ukraine is staring down the barrel of over hundred thousand if not hundreds of thousands of combat casualties before this is done unless something changes dramatically. Basically, unless tanks are supplied in the multiple thousands (which is possible, to be fair), less survivable to a penetrating hit is interesting but 1,000/1,500 extra casualties from each 1,000 tanks being rubbed out is not overly important in a war where a million people are in uniform and 10's or 100's of daily casualties do not impact morale at home. Certainly not enough to focus on replacing T72s with consequent temporary disruption to org effectiveness and reduction in operational mobility versus getting a large number of Bradley's into the field to help reduce infantry casualties. TL DR, I don't think the survivability difference is game changing between the tanks as much as the sensors aboard in support of the overwatched infantry, which the Bradley has. Also, the Bradley provides better splinter protection for infantry on the move than clinging to the top of a M1.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2022 13:15
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:People say that a lot but look at the numbers. T72 is going to (with made up numbers for arguments sake) casualty three/ two /one /none 30/10/30/30% for eg and an Abrams is going to be 5/5/10/30/50% (for four / three / two / one / none, respectively). Say there is over 1,000 tanks in service that get rubbed out with penetrating hits, it is at most three thousand soldier casualties if every tank blew up which is not remotely the case but more likely 2,000 versus say 700 or so for Abrams. At the same time Ukraine is staring down the barrel of over hundred thousand if not hundreds of thousands of combat casualties before this is done unless something changes dramatically. That's not the point at all. You can always replace lost crewmen with fresh recruits but you can't replace lost combat experience.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2022 13:37
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:That's not the point at all. You can always replace lost crewmen with fresh recruits but you can't replace lost combat experience. I read a study a while ago (tried and can't find it) by an American military branch that said more combat decreases the effectiveness of a unit. So I'd guess that better training CAN replace combat experience. edit: it was "The Relationship of Battle Damage to Unit Combat Performance" by the Institute for Defense Analyses quote:The term "veteran unit" is in a sense a misnomer since the longer a unit is in action, the fewer true veterans it will contain Enjoy fucked around with this message at 13:58 on Dec 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2022 13:55
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:I read a study a while ago (tried and can't find it) by an American military branch that said more combat decreases the effectiveness of a unit. So I'd guess that better training CAN replace combat experience. Possibly, but that study, if anything, is an argument for the importance of superior survivability in tanks: if the issue is attrition wearing down how many true veterans exist in a combat unit over time, wouldn't better chances of survival slow down the rate at which combat effectiveness degrades due to loss of veterans? Not to mention that even if we assume that training can replace combat experience, replacing a highly-trained prewar tanker with a hastily-trained up conscript still seems less than ideal for the purposes of retaining combat effectiveness. Combat manpower isn't a completely fungible asset, especially for more technical positions, and even if you're reasonably sure of producing reasonably well-trained conscripts it still saves time, money, and resources if you can keep the already-trained people you have alive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2022 14:09
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:I read a study a while ago (tried and can't find it) by an American military branch that said more combat decreases the effectiveness of a unit. So I'd guess that better training CAN replace combat experience. Yup, iirc the idea is that experienced (and surviving) troops learn to avoid risk, and attacking is super risky, so eventually a unit can get do experienced that it is only useful for defence or rotation out of combat. https://professionalwargaming.co.uk/TheRelationshipBetweenBattleDamageAndCombatPerformance.pdf
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2022 14:10
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:I read a study a while ago (tried and can't find it) by an American military branch that said more combat decreases the effectiveness of a unit. So I'd guess that better training CAN replace combat experience. Why is that? If the casualties are replaced by trained soldiers at the same standards as the unit started out with. Wouldn't performance increase as those are mixed with combat veterans?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2022 14:12
|
|
|
New Perun video is out. Ammunition shortages in Ukraine - production, supply, & are Russia or the West running dry? Another good video, the tldw; ammo supply is more of a political question of supplying Ukraine than actual production.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2022 14:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 09:53 |
|
|
Feliday Melody posted:Why is that? I think it is to do with training as a group to be a team rather than training individual skills. Train as a team, fight as a team, win as a team. Taking out a key component and replacing it with someone unfamiliar to the team degrades the whole unit greater than the lost veteran experience of the individual replaced solider. Which is to say, you are better off putting in a whole new tank with a whole new cohesive team that has trained together than to mix and match veterans without tanks into new tanks as they arrive. If you have the luxury, send the survivors back to camp to train or to re-train with a new unit. There is a reason the US wins battles most of the time historically and it is not because through lack of numbers, the US used very experienced troops in preference to lots of trained troops. Maybe planners and senior officers stayed for the duration of a campaign, but a lot of front-line units were rotated out after 25 missions, a year in combat, etc. In effect the US fights with green troops as a greater proportion of their forces than any of their opponents by design. Interestingly, the Europeans would take whole units out of the line to retrain as an entire unit when attritted through combat whereas the US say, in Vietnam would replace losses of a unit with fresh troops flown in from the US as they took losses. I am not sure the US is still set up with the same system but I think it relies upon only a small amount of attrition.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2022 14:36
|
|