|
Spoggerific posted:Listen, if it works in ArmA 3 when fighting the AI, why wouldn't it work in real life? Can confirm it definitely doesn't work in ArmA 3
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2022 07:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 18:49 |
|
|
Hey, for what it's worth, for people having trouble with this: I'm getting too stressed out to keep following the war, and I'm not even a veteran. While this thread has been excellent and informative so far, it's a lot. Nothing wrong with stepping away from it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2022 10:51
|
|
|
I wonder how it'll affect things back on the Korean Peninsula if/when DPRK equipment turns out to be as dogshit as Russian equipment has.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2022 03:21
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:It won't. No one is under any illusions North Korea can win a war, the questions are how much damage can they do before they go down (real nice Seoul and Tokyo you got there, shame if anything atoms-related were to happen to them) and if China would get involved (I suspect as much as they don't want a unified Korea on their border they wouldn't be willing to fight over it, but it's a risk). Everyone already knows North Korea's military is barely functional. Russia is different since it was assumed their military was a serious world contender until they decided to show everyone otherwise. That makes sense. Thanks, that was insightful
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2022 04:46
|
|
|
How do you reckon it works out having both AK series and AR series weapons in circulation? Is it not a logistics pain in the arse to have to deal with two different kinds of ammo?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2022 05:14
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:if i can't pronounce the name of a chemical it can't hurt me Literally liquid mercury was looked at for missiles at one point. Not "mercury hexa-unpronouncable-ide", plain mercury. They knew you could get a boost of engine thrust by squirting unreacted liquid out the back of the thing, the more mass the better. And being a metal, mercury is pretty dense. So yes, at one point the calculations were done for what performance improvement you'd get if your SAM pisses out actual liquid mercury as it flies. Ignition! was a fun read 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2023 09:14
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:Monatomic mercury gas I stand corrected!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2023 21:05
|
|
|
Is it just me, or have there been fewer updates about the war itt over the past few weeks, compared to before that? Are sources not posting as much about it? Or is it just that the situation is now more static?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2023 23:37
|
|
|
psydude posted:Yeah unfortunately there isn't really a quick way to put up an obstacle belt if you aren't using mines. Tank ditches and wire take a lot of time and personnel, whereas mines can be delivered via artillery or aircraft. That said, I'm not sure there's a real operational purpose for APM these days other than trying to degrade enemy morale or kill a lot of civilians. What's wrong with anti-vehicle mines, though?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2023 02:11
|
|
|
A.o.D. posted:yeah I just say recon if reconnaissance is too many syllables for some reason. I think "wrecky" vs "reecon" is a Commonwealth vs USA difference. "Recce" is used in Australia, too. I wonder which the Canadians use...
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2023 03:52
|
|
|
In that POV combat vid, what was that yellow painted weapon he used?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2023 10:13
|
|
|
I just want to say that this thread has always been outstanding. Excellent, credible commentary from people with relevant experience. It's actually been my primary source of information about the war, because I know the regulars are much better able to sort truth from bullshit than I. I really hope it stays this way.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2023 09:00
|
|
|
Infidelicious posted:My read is even though they've built a new defensive line; there's very little reason to pull back to it as it's just going to be subject to the same grinding attrition strategy. They're surrounded on three sides, and getting completely cut off would be very bad. Maybe it is the last possible moment!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2023 07:31
|
|
|
I once read a book on Japan in WW2 that claimed that they weren't going to capitulate after the atomic bomb attacks, on the basis that the previous firebombings had actually destroyed much more and killed more people, and it took the emperor finally piping up and telling them to surrender.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2023 09:30
|
|
|
Borscht posted:https://twitter.com/AlexandruC4/status/1634296480101015553 If you've snuck into a military airbase and torched a jet, why would you stick around to film it rather than getting the gently caress out immediately?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2023 23:46
|
|
|
Does anyone else find it extremely weird that all this combat footage is presented with music?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2023 00:18
|
|
|
Well, "weird" in the sense of "jarring and off-putting" rather then "unusual"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2023 00:35
|
|
|
Even if those ancient tanks *could* be modernised, what do you think the chances are of Russia having the necessary kit just lying around waiting to be applied to tank?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2023 23:34
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:Rubber blocks are a real form of armor. NERA, Non-explosive reactive armor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-explosive_reactive_armor Please, PLEASE tell me it work by bouncing the round off with a "boioioioing!"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2023 14:19
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:No but his article is "cited" in the same way as Sy's stupid pipeline piece. Unnamed sources described in a vague yet enticingly mysterious way. Also the closing paragraph is totally bonkers "I tried to publish this in the mainstream media but the evil CIA told them blah blah blah". It's the same Government Conspiracy Suppressing the Truth style as a fraudulent POW memoir about a super-secret Japanese prison camp run by a traitorous British officer whose name appears nowhere in British Army records that I'm researching. Yeah, I'm having trouble seeing how anyone could find the article credible. I'm not just going to believe that guy just because he's pro Ukraine!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2023 05:53
|
|
|
sexy tiger boobs posted:Congrats to Mr Pickles on his new babies. Yeah! Sounds like Mr and Mrs Pickles and their new hatchlings (Dill, Gherkin and Jalapeņo) are doing well! https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/22/us/houston-zoo-tortoise-babies.html
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2023 16:44
|
|
|
Fragrag posted:This (safe for work) video of a lighter fluid bottle exploding in a laundromat dryer wreaked much more havoc than I expected. I don't know its explosive equivalent but I would be surprised if it was more than a grenade Bear in mind that fuel explosions produce fireballs like that while high explosive, like in a grenade, typically does not. There's one short, sharp BANG without fire and flame. The big, impressive fireballs you see from military weapons in movies are done using gasoline, to make them look big and impressive.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2023 00:34
|
|
|
It's also possible to donate directly to the Ukrainian government, who have set up separate funds for military and civilian use. I'm reasonably sure donating to the military one directly materially contributes to ending the war! https://bank.gov.ua/en/ (NB: I've had it pointed out to me before that if you're an employee of the USA government you might be in hot water for directly sending money to a foreign armed forces). Dein Specht posted:https://twitter.com/Havoc_Six/status/1645807758485118976 Okay, but what's the actual advantage of energy weapons over bullets, when it comes to shooting down drones? Does it actually need to be lasers (unproven on the battlefield) or would something that goes "bang" also do the job, but be more reliable?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2023 23:20
|
|
|
Fair enough! (All I know is games, which that all matches up with. After all, Wolf Clan won their objectives at the Battle of Tukayyid because they mostly used laser weapons, while the other clans ran low on ammunition for their guns) 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2023 00:35
|
|
|
The main thing I was wondering about was whether the lasers would be reliable enough, being new technology. Tiny's post was interesting, because if the prospective system is going to be new technology either way then that's not really a drawback. I mean sure, if it works as it's supposed to then it seems pretty clearly the better option.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2023 02:25
|
|
|
pmchem posted:https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1649246577205350400?s=20 F-16s are much cheaper, like $10mil cheaper. I think the chances are, if/when the USA eventually gives them jets, it'd be much more likely to be F-16s than F-15s, for that reason if nothing else.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2023 08:25
|
|
|
HonorableTB posted:S tier: F-35 The Superhornet upgrade to the F/A-18, sure. As far as I know the original is basically the same tier as the F-16 and friends. Though I think avionics were nicer than the F-16 even then. The F-16 is fine. It's not cutting edge any more, but it still gets the job done and it's relatively cheap. And it's gorgeous, which is obviously very important.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2023 09:24
|
|
|
To back up for a sec, planechat started because of this:pmchem posted:https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1649246577205350400?s=20 Given that basically everyone agrees that ground-based antiair is more important and more cost effective, I wonder why their Twitter is asking for planes. Misdirection, maybe? Like the whole "Javelins are winning the war for us, they're amazing" thing when it's actually mostly artillery, with a lot of Javelin footage having been saved up from the initial successes and then trickled out over a longer time period.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2023 22:52
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Ukraine isn’t proposing that they fund, resource, or train their own aviation maintenance program, for one. I'm not sure I follow, can you elaborate? Do you mean "given they haven't proposed that stuff, which would be necessary, this must just be PR"?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2023 01:53
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:It is easy to say you want a capability when you will not be the one to pay for it or maintain it. Right, absolutely. I had sort of assumed they were thinking along the lines of your second paragraph, though. An ep of War On The Rocks (https://warontherocks.libsyn.com/backing-ukraine-against-russia-with-colin-kahl-and-derek-chollet I think) discussed not sending F-16s because it's not cost effective, because there's only so much aid budget actually available, and I got the impression that this was something Ukraine are aware of as well; that they could theoretically have one F-16 or 146 Stinger missiles but not both, and so the second is the better option. And that, at least on some level, the Ukrainians are indeed involved in drawing up the shopping list. Put another way: they aren't paying for it in their own money, they're paying for it in opportunity cost, and I was pretty sure they're aware of that. Hyperlynx fucked around with this message at 06:01 on Apr 24, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2023 05:59
|
|
|
Kchama posted:The whole Fighter Mafia thing never ceases to boggle my mind. How did the guys whose entire gimmick was 'reforming' things to be cheaper and shittier ever get any kind of clout or prestige? Lying, mostly, if our friend the pig is to be believed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZDfdCj61dY
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2023 13:05
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-welcomes-president-zelenskyy-to-the-uk-ahead-of-anticipated-ukrainian-military-surge Really surprised by that, given this analysis posted upthread! https://geopolitics-decanted.simplecast.com/episodes/how-can-ukraine-survive-the-exhaustion-of-its-air-defense-stocks The tl;dl of why not to use the F-16 put forward in that podcast is
The podcast then went on to suggest the Swedish Gripen, which is designed to operate from short, lovely runways, fly at low altitude, and can use the Meteor air-to-air missile that is perfectly happy at/from low altitude. And apparently easier to learn to fly than the Viper. As much as I love the F-16, I found the above very convincing (not that I'm an irl plane-flier, military or otherwise). I'd be very interested to know why they decided to go with the F-16 after all!
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2023 01:51
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:The runway angle, IDK, I'm not an engineer, but I'm skeptical how much of a problem that would really be. Historically it's very difficult to take out a runway for any length of time using cruise missiles, it's pretty quick to patch things up at least to the level of supporting fighter aircraft. We're not talking about landing massive, heavy transports or anything. Yeah, the F-16 isn't designed for operating off dirt strips or whatever, but like, any road repair crew should be able to suffice. For sure. But you can cruise-missile the hangars at or near the nice F-16-worthy runway knowing that they're likely to be the ones they're in. But, at any rate, I didn't mean that I think they're making a mistake and they shouldn't be going for the F-16 (I'm not remotely able to make that analysis!). It's just that the arguments I heard against it sounded very convincing, and I'm interested to hear explanations for why they would go for it. PurpleXVI posted:Assuming that analysis is correct, it might be something as simple as the volume of available planes. 4500 F-16's have been produced over the years, while under 200 Saab Gripens have been made. Makes sense to me. If the Viper is suboptimal but you can actually get it, maybe it's literally better than nothing?
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2023 03:45
|
|
|
Last I heard, the UA airforce was having to operate from very low, though that info could well be out of date. Have things changed? Does Russia no longer have SA-10s and the like in range of the battlefield? Also, the thought has just occurred: what's the UA airforce currently got in terms of strike aircraft? Because the F-16 can still do strikes while down in the dirt... e: but, baiting the Russian airforce into fighting away from SAMs and then pwning them would make sense to me. If you could get them to commit. Hyperlynx fucked around with this message at 05:22 on May 16, 2023 |
|
#
¿
May 16, 2023 05:18
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:If the Ukrainians want to be anywhere near the front they need to be low. However one of the big reasons to get more planes is to ease the strain on the SAM network by providing coverage against aircraft, and for that they don't need to go right up to the front and want to be high anyway to get the most mileage out of their missiles. That makes sense to me!
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2023 13:42
|
|
|
I don't suppose people could litigate whether or not war is hell somewhere else?
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2023 01:28
|
|
|
Storkrasch posted:Can Ukraine's patriot batteries and future F16s get targeting data from the various NATO AWACS planes flying around Ukraine? I.e. shoot down targets entirely without engaging their own radars? The best I've got is "you can't do it in DCS or Falcon BMS". I don't know if the AIM-120C even has the capability to use a radar other then that of the firing aircraft. You could "maddog" a missile at where AWACS says it is - firing without a missile lock hoping that the missile's own radar picks up the target - but that's mostly going to miss, or hit the wrong target since the missile has no IFF.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2023 03:10
|
|
|
Borscht posted:Going pitbull sounds really cool. How do I go pitbull? Turn on your
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2023 04:36
|
|
|
Computer viking posted:Fair enough. I guess we're getting into "the people who know aren't allowed to answer" territory, but it would make sense if Patriot needs the higher precision and timing of its own local radar and/or the seeker in the missile to actually hit the most slippery targets, anyway. Going by the AIM-120 I think it's just more likely that the missiles wouldn't be designed to be controlled by more than one radar. That would be expensive. I wouldn't think it's necessarily the case of the F-16 or Patriot needing a better radar signal from their own radar (though that's probably part of it), it's more that they can't launch a missile and hand control of it over to someone else because that would be complicated and expensive to do. I think.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2023 09:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 18:49 |
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:https://twitter.com/officejjsmart/status/1660664585773363201 
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2023 22:13
|
|