|
Boris Galerkin posted:It’s a dumb commercial aimed at “””real””” Americans who identify with their trucks and guns. Well, the original ones are for sure, I'd say the Ukrainian version is pretty successful at lampooning the debate over tanks vs anti air vs mobile artillery and simultaneously selling the message "what are you guys gonna do with all of those anyway" while also appropriating an earworm that every adult in America below retirement age will immediately recognize to ensure social media shares and email forwards and such. It certainly seems in line with the thread zeitgeist around the issue, and effectively bundles the points that seem perennial in this thread without being especially wordy It helps that you can interpret it as either "we want to be more American" or "America wants to be all world police and yeehaw cowboys up until someone actually asks for help" BougieBitch fucked around with this message at 15:48 on Jan 13, 2023 |
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 15:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 14:31 |
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:I have a feeling Ukraine’s media team has more than one American educated member who is intimately familiar with the culture Ukraine has a number of Western PR firms doing pro bono work for them--I don't think they necessarily need their own experts on American culture: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/04/hottest-k-street-trend-working-ukraine-pro-bono/ https://www.politico.com/newsletters/politico-influence/2022/08/26/what-pr-firms-are-doing-for-ukraines-ministry-of-culture-00053979
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 15:50
|
|
|
Scapegoat posted:I was chatting to a French friend who is a GP who started a practice a few years ago and she mentioned the energy prices for her practice were getting quite high (she specifically mentioned the war). She's certainly not cheer leading for Russia so it worried me a bit that the prices were high enough that she mentioned it when discussing how the practice was going.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 15:58
|
|
|
Ryan Mcbeth did a 10min YT vid on those Ukrainian soldiers killed in their OP a few days ago. Only shows still images with everything blanked (it's just him talking, powerpoint) off but i would consider the topic being discussed  for anyone previously involved in combat. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vx0sVcPojg
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 16:06
|
|
|
Just Another Lurker posted:Ryan Mcbeth did a 10min YT vid on those Ukrainian soldiers killed in their OP a few days ago. This the "We're friendly!" one with suspected Wagner?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 17:13
|
|
|
Yes. Who is this guy? He name checks Dave Grossman in his video which is... troubling
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 17:24
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:Yes. Looks like a random ex-military OSINT enthusiast.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 17:27
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:Yes. No idea who Grossman is. Been following McBeth for a while, he was anti-tank infantry, sorry if his associations are actually toxic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 17:45
|
|
|
Grossman is the "Killology" guy. Despite never having been in combat, he made a career teaching American cops how to psychologically prepare themselves to kill. https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236323/episode/the-man-who-teaches-our-cops-63257870/
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 17:48
|
|
|
Fidelitious posted:Yeah it's difficult to overstate it. There were well over a billion shells fired just on the western front. There were battles where half a million shells were fired in 30 minutes. It's mind-boggling. Just to give more of an idea of scale, at the peak of the joint in this war the Russians were firing about 20,000 shells a day across the entire front. In World War I there was a six-day bombardment in preparation for the second battle of Artois on about a ten mile front that expended 350,000 shells per day.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 17:50
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Just to give more of an idea of scale, at the peak of the joint in this war the Russians were firing about 20,000 shells a day across the entire front. In World War I there was a six-day bombardment in preparation for the second battle of Artois on about a ten mile front that expended 350,000 shells per day. Peak was closer to 70k shells/day estimated, with 20k being the ongoing estimate according to Ukrainians, but your point on orders of magnitude remains valid - I’m just adding my footnote to the numbers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 17:57
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Just to give more of an idea of scale, at the peak of the joint in this war the Russians were firing about 20,000 shells a day across the entire front. In World War I there was a six-day bombardment in preparation for the second battle of Artois on about a ten mile front that expended 350,000 shells per day. It would be helpful to also compare the explosive power between the ammunition, which is more useful than solely the volume of shells used. As an example, people often like to compare the sorties conducted in WWII for bombing missions and the number of planes involved, compared to recent conflicts, but it takes approximately 15 B-17s or between 6-14 B-29s (depending on altitude) to equal a single B-52.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 19:25
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:Grossman is the "Killology" guy. Despite never having been in combat, he made a career teaching American cops how to psychologically prepare themselves to kill. It cannot be emphasized enough how loving vile this poo poo dick is, and how much of a model he has become for the police community. There's video out there of him saying that you'll have the best sex of your life after killing a perp.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 19:26
|
|
|
SourKraut posted:It would be helpful to also compare the explosive power between the ammunition, which is more useful than solely the volume of shells used. The 155mm shell was standard then and now, but there were also much larger sizes of heavy artillery (since you needed a lot more explosive due to the lower accuracy) that are no longer used, so probably the WW1 stuff is more explosive per shell on average.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 19:48
|
|
|
saratoga posted:The 155mm shell was standard then and now, but there were also much larger sizes of heavy artillery (since you needed a lot more explosive due to the lower accuracy) that are no longer used, so probably the WW1 stuff is more explosive per shell on average. [citation needed] while there were absolute monster guns, the main calibres were 75-84mm and 120mm was already on the large end of the scale. 155mm was actually rare in WW1.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 20:02
|
|
|
And 203mm is still in use in this very war.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 20:27
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:[citation needed] Field artillery is big until you compare it to naval artillery, 120mm would be secondary armament or only suitable for anti-aircraft for a lot of ships.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 20:27
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:[citation needed] Not really, both sides had some 150-155mm calibre gun that got regularly used. Going through this list I'm also amazed at how many different monster guns were used and how many specifically by the Mittelmächte. Trying to figure out how much explosive weight those guns send out combined must be a terror to calculate, the Gamma Mörser (420mm) for example was built 10 times, but was part of a series of mega-siege cannons that ranged from the Dicke Bertha (420mm) to the Beta-Gerät (305mm). All types had different emplacement times, ranging from 24 hours for the Gamma Mörser to only 5-6 hours for the Dicke Bertha, and the six types have three different rates of fire, going from Dicke Bertha (8 shots per hour) up to the Beta-Gerät, which could fire 15 shells per hour. I really don't want to be the one getting stuck with a calculator trying to find out how all those different super-guns and their usage worked out in practice. So while the sheer size of the big guns probably still has not much of an effect due to the sheer number of smaller models outnumbering them, the 150 and 155mm models were probably built in enough numbers to skew the combined mass of the explosive weight flying through the air upwards a lot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 20:31
|
|
|
Just Another Lurker posted:Field artillery is big until you compare it to naval artillery, 120mm would be secondary armament or only suitable for anti-aircraft for a lot of ships. One of the main limitations for field artillery is being able to load the drat thing without having to resort to cranes and other contraptions. Or unless they make sone land battleship wanderwuffe.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 21:40
|
|
|
At the risk of continuing this derail the vast majority of guns on the Western Front were about 3” guns. Now, 4”-6” guns are much more common. And the power of a shell increases more like the square of the diameter. It’s not linear. So there’s absolutely more bang being put down range per shell nowadays, in addition to the improved properties of explosives. The point about volume of explosives is valid for combat power, but UXO clearance is equally difficult for a 75mm vs a 152mm round, which is how I think we got on to this topic. We aren’t going to see a France style iron harvest for a wide variety of reasons but the first is sheer volume.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2023 02:01
|
|
|
If the target was tough enough the Brits would wheel out these motherfuckers which were the same caliber as those on the Queen Elizabeth class dreadnoughts, which were the pride of His Majesty's fleet. "I say, Brigadier, I'm in awe at the size of this lad. Absolute unit." Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 02:25 on Jan 14, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2023 02:22
|
|
|
Some of those big siege cannons like the railroad car mounted guns the Germans used had such an intense pressure wave from firing them that the operators had to keep their mouths open during firing to avoid blowing out their ear drums.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2023 06:53
|
|
|
Basically if a front line becomes static long enough it becomes a playground for really, really heavy artillery. Because if you can't shift the front using the guns you have right now, a bigger gun might just do the job. And I'm not sure what level of irony this is on, but Ukraine could probably get a lot of use out of a modern Heavy Gustav if they had one. Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 07:05 on Jan 14, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2023 07:03
|
|
|
The Independent is reporting that Sunak has authorised a Challenger squadron to be sent to Ukraine
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2023 10:24
|
|
|
It has only now been revealed that Russian warships jammed GPS in Danish waters a week after the Nord Stream explosions, causing six civilian ships (including two passenger ferries) to lose position signal momentarily. This was covered up at the time. https://mobile.twitter.com/HthHans/status/1613514931848060928
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2023 12:22
|
|
|
Paracausal posted:The Independent is reporting that Sunak has authorised a Challenger squadron to be sent to Ukraine Tanks, but not soldiers as your post implied [e: You made my heart jump. lol] https://twitter.com/ukraine_map/status/1614192433226473474
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2023 12:47
|
|
|
Paracausal posted:The Independent is reporting that Sunak has authorised a Challenger squadron to be sent to Ukraine Hopefully Sunak didn't actually say "We're sending Ukraine Challenger, two tanks."
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2023 12:49
|
|
|
Countdown to Russia releasing reports of a destroyed UK armoured corps
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2023 13:27
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:It has only now been revealed that Russian warships jammed GPS in Danish waters a week after the Nord Stream explosions, causing six civilian ships (including two passenger ferries) to lose position signal momentarily. This was covered up at the time. No, this was not covered up. Danish media reported it back then, and I also linked those articles in this thread back then. I think the number reported was lower back then, but it is not new that Russian ships do things like this in or near Danish waters. They also threatened at least one (essentially unarmed) coast guard vessel by training various ship-mounted weapons at them - prompting air deterrence to be sent towards the situation. For months we've been one accident, misunderstanding or overzealous individual away from an armed incident between the Russian navy and a NATO country. I'm sure cooler heads would work hard to defuse and de-escalate even such an event did happen - but Russia is effecting a naval stance which increases the risk of escalation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2023 13:57
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Basically if a front line becomes static long enough it becomes a playground for really, really heavy artillery. Because if you can't shift the front using the guns you have right now, a bigger gun might just do the job. I disagree. Such immobile assets are extremely vulnerable to counterbattery fire nowadays. If it cannot move, it dies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2023 14:16
|
|
|
PederP posted:No, this was not covered up. Danish media reported it back then, and I also linked those articles in this thread back then. I think the number reported was lower back then, but it is not new that Russian ships do things like this in or near Danish waters. They also threatened at least one (essentially unarmed) coast guard vessel by training various ship-mounted weapons at them - prompting air deterrence to be sent towards the situation. For months we've been one accident, misunderstanding or overzealous individual away from an armed incident between the Russian navy and a NATO country. I'm sure cooler heads would work hard to defuse and de-escalate even such an event did happen - but Russia is effecting a naval stance which increases the risk of escalation. I stand corrected! Politiken talks about a cover up in its headline, but I can't access the story because paywall.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2023 14:50
|
|
|
Does sending 12 tanks make a difference? It seems like both sides have gone through massive heaps of armor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2023 16:50
|
|
|
Dick Trauma posted:Does sending 12 tanks make a difference? It seems like both sides have gone through massive heaps of armor. In and of itself, no. The point is it break the ice and shame others into sending Leopards or Abrams.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2023 16:58
|
|
|
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...obox=1673697791 Jack Watling wrote an article about the support requirements for Western tanks. quote:Despite these sound operational reasons for providing Ukraine with armour, the provision of Nato-designed main battle tanks presents some major challenges. The Leopard 2, weighing about 69 tonnes, and Challenger 2, weighing 72 tonnes, are more than 20 tonnes heavier than the Soviet-designed main battle tanks currently operated by Ukraine. There is little Ukrainian infrastructure along which such heavy vehicles can travel, while their engineering and recovery vehicles are optimised to support Soviet designs. Putting aside the training needed to maintain and fight with Nato-designed tanks, they would also need to be provided alongside combat engineering and mobility support vehicles if they were to be employable at any scale. https://twitter.com/elisabethmalom1/status/1613871615728549888?s=20 The linked article is paywalled, but the twitter thread has a summary.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2023 17:38
|
|
|
Challengers are supposedly VERY survivable as well from what I have read. I am sure a tanker can give more accurate information about this but just like the Abrams there were reports of them taking dozens of RPG and anti-tank rounds and shrugging them off in Iraq. In the grand scheme of things a dozen doesn't mean a whole lot, they would likely be used for training, but between shaming the Germans and Americans into giving their platforms and when/if the UK gives more a single Challenger is likely worth several T-72s in terms of capability and survivability. A situation where T-72s likely wouldn't survive a Challenger or Abrams would. Also you have a much more accurate gun on them so you are able to hit more precise shots from presumably longer ranges. I am sure a tanker can elaborate on this or correct what I am misinformed about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2023 17:39
|
|
|
Dick Trauma posted:Does sending 12 tanks make a difference? It seems like both sides have gone through massive heaps of armor. Yes and no... It's a small number of tanks in a relatively large frontage. On the other hand, a tank company is a pretty normal element to select as a brigade reserve element, whether on offense or defense. Can rapidly reposition to where they're needed and provide a lot of firepower when they get there compared to trucks slowly making their way or even a mech infantry unit showing up similarly fast, but when they get there, their firepower is pretty limited.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2023 17:56
|
|
|
If a bunch of challengers show up at any battle I imagine that one specific battle would be a massive propaganda victory for Ukraine. Demonstrating they can use it responsibly and win on a tactical level then opens up the doors for a large shipment of leopards or Abrams. So far the fighting with all the Soviet level equipment, smorgasbords of MRAPs, small arms and AT weapons and random assorted artillery doesn’t have quite the same impact psychologically as seeing a western MBT ploughed through a wall take RPG hits and then wreck some T-72s.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2023 18:22
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Yes and no... It's a small number of tanks in a relatively large frontage. On the other hand, a tank company is a pretty normal element to select as a brigade reserve element, whether on offense or defense. Can rapidly reposition to where they're needed and provide a lot of firepower when they get there compared to trucks slowly making their way or even a mech infantry unit showing up similarly fast, but when they get there, their firepower is pretty limited. That small amount of equipment is also going to suffer way more drastically from normal operational losses. If half of a tank brigade have worn out engines and need repairs, the other half is still a capable force. But when the same happens to a company of 12 tanks, you don't have much operational capacity left. It is more fragile.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2023 18:23
|
|
|
Dick Trauma posted:Does sending 12 tanks make a difference? It seems like both sides have gone through massive heaps of armor. It's not about overwhelming the might of russia, it's about sending a message.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2023 18:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 14:31 |
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:If a bunch of challengers show up at any battle I imagine that one specific battle would be a massive propaganda victory for Ukraine. Demonstrating they can use it responsibly and win on a tactical level then opens up the doors for a large shipment of leopards or Abrams. This boldly assumes Ukraine will use them successfully at that battle and not lose them to a sustained Russian artillery barrage after it threw a track due to driving into a muddy ditch that was deeper than expected. Because that is how most tanks have been knocked out for both sides in this conflict, and I really doubt that any western MBTs will get more glamorous fates.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2023 19:27
|
|