(Thread IKs:
fatherboxx)
|
Yeah that’s the thing, if Oryx was duping stuff then they would have been called out long ago. It would be easy enough to prove since there are photos to go along with the lists.
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2023 05:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 01:13 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1664149760939286528?cxt=HHwWgICznf_Yn5guAAAA More incursions and self promotion in Belgorod. Let's see if they have US vehicles this time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2023 07:18
|
|
|
Be wary of NOELreports, it is a very clickbait-loving trash account - always follow the source of their news.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2023 07:50
|
|
|
fatherboxx posted:Be wary of NOELreports, it is a very clickbait-loving trash account - always follow the source of their news. Thanks for the warning, I figured it was very likely just amplifying some sort of self promotional video the Russian legion put out, but I figured it wouldn't be surprising for there to be activity in the area since "fighting" has occurred in the area on the 30th. https://notes.citeam.org/dispatch-may-30-31
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2023 08:17
|
|
|
Mr. Apollo posted:RealGeneration86 is the only one I still had open in a tab. The other videos should be in your YouTube watch history if you want to share them too. I'd be curious to see them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2023 08:42
|
|
|
Schebekino in Belgorod region is under fire (some shelling has been reported through the week) https://twitter.com/ian_matveev/status/1664195647535185920?t=1TFJbSzG8YYkHrpQY5UNxQ&s=19 (Admin building judging by the flags) Local administration is reluctant to actually arrange full evacuation so civilians are leaving themselves
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2023 10:14
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Someone let me know if I'm getting over my skis here, but I think maybe Russia had nothing to do with those videos. During the US presidential election, in addition to the troll farms funded by the Russians and various American politicians, there were plenty of weird youtube channels pushing very weird conspiracy theory bullshit that fit no-one's message. The reason was simply that views on youtube are ad impressions which are money, and a bunch of people from poorer countries figured out that if you make conspiracy theory bullshit about how the democrats are going to harvest your internal organs, they get views and therefore get paid.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2023 10:28
|
|
|
The reward structure of platforms like Youtube and Twitter puts evolutionary pressure on content. Youtube rewards generative garbage like Elsagate, garish weirdo thumbnails that appeal to unsupervised children, and conspiracy poo poo like flat earth. It also somehow manages to surface good content once in a while. Twitter consistently rewards the most credulous engagement chasers, but reality is usually boring and complicated and that doesn't fit into a one-sentence tweet (and Twitter's userbase doesn't have the attention span or intellectual ability to comprehend more than a paragraph anyway). If you look around Youtube for Ukraine war commentary, you get some freak accidents like Perun, but the majority is an absolute waste land of what can only be called audiovisual slurry. It's something to keep in mind when you browse the big tech platforms. The reward structure they set up will be exploited to serve as much low-effort spam as possible, and the reward structure determines the type of spam you will encounter. There isn't necessarily a conspiracy of disinformation. Profit motive and reward structure is all that's required. Speaking of paragraphs. https://www.ft.com/content/1cf8b9ed-6320-47c2-b87c-5508e9a7255f quote:Brussels is working on a four-year financing plan for Ukraine worth tens of billions of euros as it seeks to put its support for the war-torn country on a more stable and predictable footing. Why do foreign papers call the IfW the "Kiel Institute", by the way? Kiel has a few dozen institutes, the Institut of World Economy being just one of them…
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2023 11:04
|
|
|
Antigravitas posted:
Well it might surprise you but I am pretty sure Den Hague has more than one court, too
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2023 11:31
|
|
|
BabyFur Denny posted:Well it might surprise you but I am pretty sure Den Hague has more than one court, too Metonyms, how do they work? Btw it's either Den Haag or The Hague
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2023 11:32
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:Metonyms, how do they work? https://twitter.com/kielinstitute Everyone calls it the Kiel Institute because they call themselves the Kiel Institute?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2023 11:34
|
|
|
I'm not disagreeing with anything you said
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2023 11:52
|
|
|
Sounds presumptuous to me, but it certainly fits with my perception of the IfW. When I think "institute from Kiel", I typically think of the Geomar.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2023 12:29
|
|
|
I don't think the Financial Times writes much about oceanology.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2023 13:25
|
|
|
https://svakulenko.substack.com/p/is-power-of-siberia-2-a-white-elephant?sd=pfquote:There might be a temptation to compare the construction of the Power of Siberia 2 to the construction of the original Brotherhood and follow-up Urengoy-Pomary-Uzhgorod pipeline of the 1960s – 1980s and claim that this is a new page in the glorious history of the Russian gas industry and gas exports. The problem is though, that in the 1980s the prospects of Russian gas sales to Europe looked endless, and as history has shown there was indeed a lot of scope for market expansion. However, the Russian-Chinese gas trade most likely has an expiry date and might be over by 2060 due to the energy transition, and the switch to renewable energy away from fossil fuels, and this outlook leaves little upside to a fresh long-term gas export project. In case anyone wants to keep tabs on the Power of Siberia 2 pipeline project. There's inevitably going to be triumphalist claims, and this article will help you put those in context.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2023 13:30
|
|
|
Moon Slayer posted:It's a real good listen, especially for those of us who don't have the time or inclination to read full RUSI analysis reports. The thing that jumped out at me was the discussion on the current way tanks are being used. Obviously we all know now that the initial hot takes of "tanks are over" was garbage, but I wonder how design is going to evolve when the lessons of this conflict start being applied. What I mean is how "modern" tanks aren't really going to be used for fire-and-maneuver or breaching lines, but more for indirect fire and infantry support. I'll bet that the next generation of "MBT's" is going to look a lot more like a combo SPA/IFV than what it is now. How tanks are used is context dependant. If you're planning on using them in a static conflict to supplement artillery then there are a lot of lessons here. Probably though people are not very interested in that since supplementing artillery only makes sense if your artillery and air power are failing in their roles. It would be better to address the weaknesses in those systems directly. As for tanks, probably active defense systems start to look a lot more attractive since now everyone is going to be making their own javelins.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2023 14:19
|
|
|
I remember reading somewhere that the ERA everybody is slapping on everything was actually surprisingly effective against a variety of anti tank weapons which is also causing problems.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2023 19:07
|
|
|
WarpedLichen posted:I remember reading somewhere that the ERA everybody is slapping on everything was actually surprisingly effective against a variety of anti tank weapons which is also causing problems. ERA is very effective. Something missed in the breathless hot takes is the realization that our data is heavily skewed by survivor bias and a bias for showing dramatic footage. There are relatively few videos publicly available of tanks getting hit and not turning into an instant barbeque. Why? Because it's not visually interesting. We had tanks in Iraq hit anti-tank mines all the time when we were guarding ammo dumps. (Seriously: Iraq had a ridiculous amount of ammunition. They did not make the mistake of European countries when it came to that.) The front armor skirt would get blown off, the crew would drag it back, re-attach it, probably replace a single track link, and be on their way. Obviously there are very nasty anti-tank mines that can get hard-kills even on Abrams, but modern--and even less-modern--tanks are remarkably resilient. It takes a lot of focused effort to take one down. (That's a good tactic sometimes, too. "Hey, look at me! Over here!" Meanwhile, maneuver elsewhere.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2023 19:24
|
|
|
Some analysis on the recent drone strikes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeB4GSqtAUs
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2023 20:04
|
|
|
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/06/pentagon-buying-starlink-dishes-for-ukraine-after-funding-dispute-with-spacex/ Elon lied about supporting Ukraine on his own dime. Color me shocked. (The US is picking up the tab.) Maybe if Teslas keep killing pedestrians and Twitter keeps amplifying Russian propaganda we'll have an excuse to nationalize Starlink.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2023 22:04
|
|
|
Bear in mind that while there's a lot of modern AT weapons in Ukraine designed to punch through ERA, there's also a lot of older or less sophisticated AT weapons that have a tougher time with it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2023 00:02
|
|
|
Yeah tandem warhead charges are ten times the expense and effort, at least double the weight, and completely superfluous if your blowing up a 4x4 with a machine-gun on the roof.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2023 00:51
|
|
|
I don't know tanks. Is blowing the ERA enough to take a tank out of service? Or at least send it back for repairs/new ERA. Or is it like "whelp, next hit will kill us but we're still in the fight and next time we're hosed"? Granted, I know the answer is probably "depends" but I am curious if the loss of ERA is a deciding factor if a tank (or whatever) is still considered viable for combat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2023 01:13
|
|
|
RoyKeen posted:I don't know tanks. Is blowing the ERA enough to take a tank out of service? Or at least send it back for repairs/new ERA. Or is it like "whelp, next hit will kill us but we're still in the fight and next time we're hosed"? I can’t speak for how effective ERA is/isn’t, but a tank is more than just its gun. They (typically  ) have optics, a radio, and some sort of GPS…so they can feed coordinates for both observer (them) and at least a distance/general direction (aka targeting data) back to whatever artillery support is close-ish, and utterly ruin the day of whoever shot at them. This is the ideal scenario, at least. No jammers, no tandem charges (designed specifically to defeat ERA), etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2023 01:26
|
|
|
RoyKeen posted:I don't know tanks. Is blowing the ERA enough to take a tank out of service? Or at least send it back for repairs/new ERA. Or is it like "whelp, next hit will kill us but we're still in the fight and next time we're hosed"? ERA is designed specifically to turn what would be a potentially lethal hit into an ineffectual one, but are not equally effective against everything. They're really effective against HEAT and HESH rounds; the former because the counterexplosion negates how HEAT works, and the latter because any spaced armor practically defeats HESH completely. ERA is somewhat useful against HE in theory, but any HE you fire out of a tank probably won't do real damage to another tank even without ERA, and bombs pack enough power that ERA won't save you anyways, so the window of "enough explosive to cripple without ERA but not enough with ERA" is pretty narrow. And of course, ERA is basically useless against inert AP rounds. Given all that, you can look at it two ways. ERA can help you survive the first shot, but what happens next really depends on doctrine and probably on the tank commander in question. I could see depending on the variables that a tank with it's ERA blown to retreat, or try to kill whatever shot at it, or perhaps something else depending on the circumstance. In any case, ERA exists specifically to get destroyed without impacting the functionality of the tank. It's like asking "if an IFV uses up all it's smoke grenades does that put it out of service?"
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2023 01:44
|
|
|
RoyKeen posted:I don't know tanks. Is blowing the ERA enough to take a tank out of service? Or at least send it back for repairs/new ERA. Or is it like "whelp, next hit will kill us but we're still in the fight and next time we're hosed"? ERA is applied as a bunch of modules mounted on top of the regular armor. The modules are small enough that getting hit again in the same place is possible, but unlikely. If the ERA did its job and the regular armor wasn't penetrated, the tank and crew should be fine. However, see the Chieftain re: "significant emotional events".
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2023 01:48
|
|
|
Yeah, but after that "significant emotional event" is the tank pulled from fighting? I guess what I'm curious about is if a 'non-kill-able" strike sets off the ERA and saves the tanks does it still need to be pulled back to the front and taken out of service until more ERA is fitted or is it just accepted that you lost that one free life and still running so onward. I do get that it all depends on the dynamics of the situation but is there some doctrine regarding lost ERA and if the opposing force can say "this won't kill the tank but it'll have to go back and get refitted" Also, I am aware that while the guy with the RPG is thinking that there's still a perfectly viable tank over there. But when things calm down does it go back for repairs, is ERA re-applicable on site or is it just considered a loss of a layer of protection and let's move on? I know this isn't probably a question that can be answered. I was just thinking out loud.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2023 02:56
|
|
|
Pretty sure they can just replace the exploded/damaged ERA tiles with new ones after the fight. I doubt it would need to go back for major refitting unless something more critical was damaged.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2023 03:02
|
|
|
The thing is though that despite ERA working once, you have to ask yourself how lucky do you think you are, punk? Because no ERA is without weak spots, you just can't cover everything with ERA tiles because you have guns and sensors and seams and all. You also don't know if they don't have something beefier aimed at you next that could penetrate the ERA with ease. So it is a good moment to consider moving to a better protected hull down or even turret down position and try to figure out where the shot came from. But it's the mission and tactical situation that guide the reactions. It's not different from an infantry squad getting hammered with artillery, sometimes you want to get away and find some concrete basement to wait out in, but sometimes you will just need to hold the line.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2023 03:56
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:The thing is though that despite ERA working once, you have to ask yourself how lucky do you think you are, punk? Because no ERA is without weak spots, you just can't cover everything with ERA tiles because you have guns and sensors and seams and all. You also don't know if they don't have something beefier aimed at you next that could penetrate the ERA with ease. So it is a good moment to consider moving to a better protected hull down or even turret down position and try to figure out where the shot came from. But it's the mission and tactical situation that guide the reactions. It's not different from an infantry squad getting hammered with artillery, sometimes you want to get away and find some concrete basement to wait out in, but sometimes you will just need to hold the line. Speaking of infantry, you don't want them anywhere near a ERA equipped tank, which makes for quite an oxymoron; tanks need infantry support.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2023 04:11
|
|
|
Back Hack posted:Speaking of infantry, you don't want them anywhere near a ERA equipped tank, which makes for quite an oxymoron; tanks need infantry support. Tanks don’t necessarily need infantry standing 6 meters away.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2023 04:13
|
|
|
Back Hack posted:Speaking of infantry, you don't want them anywhere near a ERA equipped tank, which makes for quite an oxymoron; tanks need infantry support. You just never want to be close to a tank that is either firing or being fired at. A 125mm cannon has quite a muzzle blast! Also I think that you might be thinking of active protection systems, which extend the dangerous area around the tank.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2023 04:21
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:You just never want to be close to a tank that is either firing or being fired at. A 125mm cannon has quite a muzzle blast! How loud is a tank cannon? Will a soldier standing next to one without protection be hosed?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2023 04:54
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Tanks don’t necessarily need infantry standing 6 meters away. It's very common for deadly fragmentation from ERA casings to be thrown much greater than just 6 meters.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2023 04:55
|
|
|
ERA is basically just bricks of C4 right? I wouldn't want to be anywhere near that if it goes off .
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2023 05:14
|
|
|
Back Hack posted:It's very common for deadly fragmentation from ERA casings to be thrown much greater than just 6 meters. Yeah. My point was that infantry supporting tanks are often dozens or hundreds of meters from said tanks. There are exceptions like sitting at the field-phone slapped on the back of a tank, but you really try to minimize hanging out close to tanks because they have numerous ways to kill infantry or draw fire.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2023 05:20
|
|
|
RoyKeen posted:I don't know tanks. Is blowing the ERA enough to take a tank out of service? Or at least send it back for repairs/new ERA. Or is it like "whelp, next hit will kill us but we're still in the fight and next time we're hosed"? The tank will become like Smaug with one of its scales missing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2023 05:22
|
|
|
TheRat posted:How loud is a tank cannon? Will a soldier standing next to one without protection be hosed? Extremely loud. Yeah. Hearing damage from standing next to the muzzle of nearly any firearm is guaranteed, let alone a 100mm+ high velocity cannon. Overpressure can cause TBIs, detach retinas, burst ear drums, etc. Flying debris can gently caress a person up pretty well, too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2023 05:28
|
|
|
US Army test results state that the highest typical measured dB value inside an M1 Abrams with hatches closed is between 93 dB (low idle) and 117 dB (at 40mph). Highest typical measured dB value at the gunners' position behind the M119 artillery piece, with roughly the same muzzle velocity as the Abrams' M256 main gun, is 183dB. Generally, 70 dB causes damage over a prolonged period and 120 dB+ causes immediate damage. Just being inside of a tank, seperated from the muzzle by steel and composite armor and from the engine by bulkheads, will gently caress your hearing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2023 05:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 01:13 |
|
|
madeintaipei posted:Just being inside of a tank, seperated from the muzzle by steel and composite armor and from the engine by bulkheads, will gently caress your hearing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2023 06:07
|
|
