Sanctions against Russia

[facthunter]

Is Turkey a FULL member of NATO? I thought they stopped short of that a few years ago. Nev

[willedoo]

8 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Is Turkey a FULL member of NATO? I thought they stopped short of that a few years ago. Nev

Since 1952, but they don't act like it sometimes.

[onetrack]

Macron is piss-weak, and is the weak link in NATO that Putin will exploit. You will never appease Putin by bowing to his threats and giving him "a way out".

As with all brutal, murderous dictators, he only understands one thing, a brutal response to his brutal, murderous moves.

 

NATO, the U.S. and the U.K. need to step up support to Ukraine, give them anti-missile defences and long range missiles, so the Ukrainians can really inflict some savage damage to Putins military.

When Putins sees nothing but smoking ruins of his "world-power" military, he will understand that he's lost and come to the negotiation table.

 

Russia launched 2900 missiles at Kyiv, surely that must have substantially reduced the number they can use against the Ukrainian troops?

[willedoo]

I'm not sure how accurate or up to date this map is, but it's supposed to represent yesterday's air strikes with air and sea launched missiles and suicide drones.

 

It's fairly typical of the new overall commander General Sergei Surovikin's method of operation. He was in charge in Syria and responsible for a lot of the bombing of Aleppo and other cities. They fight a coward's war - they can't defeat the enemy on the battlefield, so they bomb their cities. There's some talk that yesterdays bombings were planned a few days before the Crimean Bridge attack. It makes some sense as a large operation like that combining sea and air forces would involve quite a bit of logistics and coordination, and not the sort of thing you can put together in a couple of days.

 

It's killed and injured civilians and caused a lot of power outages, but has achieved very little from a military tactical viewpoint. They've squandered a lot of long range missiles that are in short supply, so hopefully it was all for show and won't repeat too often. Yesterday's attacks are unsustainable for the Russians; they haven't got enough stocks of those missiles left to waste on operations that don't produce a result on the front lines.

 

It's easy to get distracted from the main game by things like yesterday's attacks, but in reality it was a political stunt. They are losing on the battlefield, so hope to use terror to break the will of the Ukrainians and their western backers. That's the stubborn mentality of the Kremlin goons. Putin's dreaming.

 

 

Edited October 11, 2022 by willedoo

[willedoo]

Retired Australian Major General Mick Ryan always makes some good observations on his daily Twitter feed. Some good points about Putin setting political objectives that can't be backed up militarily. After getting kicked out of the area around Kiev, he went to the fall back position of securing the Donbass. While he couldn't even control both those provinces, he expanded the political objective to two more contested provinces. Putin gets his capabilities confused with his possibilities.

 

Right from the start, their invasion has been a shambles. The only reason they gained ground in the south early in the war was the Ukraine didn't have enough men and weapons to defend that area, so had to withdraw. Overall, Russia attacked on multiple fronts with too few troops, bad logistics,supply and poor leadership. Add to that, generally low standard, unmotivated troops and poor communication between units and lack of coordination between forces.

 

On the battlefield, their performance has been poor. They're bad at maneuver, ability to combine forces, and have woeful command and communication between units. The only way Russia can gain ground is by their usual tactic - use their large numbers of artillery and munitions to pound towns and villages to a pulp forcing Ukrainian forces to withdraw, then when the enemy has left, move the infantry in to hold what's left of the town. On the battlefield, in an infantry vs infantry battle, Russia can't compete. All Putin has going for him is artillery and that's running out.

 

 

 

 

[willedoo]

Another astounding thing has been the Russian's totally dumb use of tanks. They seem to use them piecemeal and just randomly drive them around until they get hit. Putin is totally squandering his tank forces.

 

The recent Ukrainian counter offensive in Kharkiv province showed how smart people use tanks. ie: in the role they are meant for, infantry support and rapid breaking through of enemy lines. Hats off to the bravery of the Ukrainian engineers who went in first clearing mines so the rest of the forces could follow. After that, the Ukrainians used excellent force integration and communications to drive a tank column with infantry, supported by artillery, straight through the Russian lines Blitzkrieg style. Or as Patton's sanitised version would say - like sh*t through a goose.

 

The Ukrainians have long abandoned the old Soviet battle tactics whereby a tank squadron commander is in one of the tanks. In the Kharkiv counter offensive, tank commanders stayed behind and directed the battle from airborne recon drones, with a birds eye view of the whole battle. They were the eyes of the tank crews and directed fire and movement over the radio with real time drone footage. It's the sort of tactics Russian forces have proven themselves incapable of.

[Yenn]

Don't worry it will soon be over. Marles the minister responsible in Australia for defence is contemplating sending Aussie soldiers to advise the Ukranian fighters.

That worries me on two fronts we sent advisers to Viet Nam and look where that ended up. Politicians should get out of warmaking.

Secondly how are we going to advise the Ukranian fighters. We don't have a record of fighting their kind of war, in fact we don't have a record of fighting any kind of war successfully. I am not trying to denigrate our military, who I think do a terrific job, but they have their hands tied behind their backs by politicians. Also our military  seems to be unable to provide equipment for our fighters. Would our advisers to Ukraine suggest they should use nuclear submarines with conventional weapons, or maybe warships that do net even meet civilian safety standards.

The Ukranians seem to be doing a good job, but there are not enough of them and they are fighting a war we are not equipped to fight and have no experience of. For our politician Marles to suggest becoming advisers is pure bullcrap and goes to show how our petty Pollies really see themselves. Trouble is it is not a mirror that they are looking in but just a distorted image.

If we really wanted to help the Ukranians we should be fighting alongside them, not big noting ourselves, but we are too scared to do that.

[willedoo]

11 minutes ago, Yenn said:

Don't worry it will soon be over. Marles the minister responsible in Australia for defence is contemplating sending Aussie soldiers to advise the Ukranian fighters.

That worries me on two fronts we sent advisers to Viet Nam and look where that ended up. Politicians should get out of warmaking.

Secondly how are we going to advise the Ukranian fighters. We don't have a record of fighting their kind of war, in fact we don't have a record of fighting any kind of war successfully. I am not trying to denigrate our military, who I think do a terrific job, but they have their hands tied behind their backs by politicians. Also our military  seems to be unable to provide equipment for our fighters. Would our advisers to Ukraine suggest they should use nuclear submarines with conventional weapons, or maybe warships that do net even meet civilian safety standards.

The Ukranians seem to be doing a good job, but there are not enough of them and they are fighting a war we are not equipped to fight and have no experience of. For our politician Marles to suggest becoming advisers is pure bullcrap and goes to show how our petty Pollies really see themselves. Trouble is it is not a mirror that they are looking in but just a distorted image.

If we really wanted to help the Ukranians we should be fighting alongside them, not big noting ourselves, but we are too scared to do that.

Give it time and it will be the other way around, with us having Ukrainian advisors. The western world armies are lining up to learn from them. They are Europe's most experience combat force. I don't think we could add any more text book stuff that NATO hasn't already taught them. I read an article written by an American special forces bloke who had been involved with training the Ukrainians over the last few years. He said Ukrainian special forces are now equal to the best in the world which is  big call.

[onetrack]

The style of war tactics and strategies has changed so much just in the last 10 years, that the Australian military advisers will have nothing to offer the Ukrainians.

In addition, the language barrier would prevent proper explanation of tactics and strategies.

 

They'd be better off sending a truckload of decals and operating instructions in Ukrainian with them, to affix to the equipment we've sent them, and then let them get on it with it.

The Ukrainians just need a constant resupply of materials, in the form of cutting-edge weaponry and ammo that comes free from wealthy Western Nations - where it only goes to rot, anyway, due to lack of use.

[willedoo]

4 hours ago, onetrack said:

Russia launched 2900 missiles at Kyiv, surely that must have substantially reduced the number they can use against the Ukrainian troops?

That was as at July according to Zelensky. Imagine what the total would be when you add on all the other missiles fired around the country over the months. They can't have too many left. I don't know the facts, but a lot of people say their high tech cruise missiles have western components, like chips etc.. If so, making new ones might depend on how many components were stockpiled. Either way, I doubt they can afford to put on too many more shows like yesterday. The reason missile attacks have slowed down in the last couple of months is because they've been trying to conserve low stocks and didn't want to waste them on low value targets.

[willedoo]

One thing that must worry the Russians about the Crimean Bridge attack is the flimsy nature of the bridge construction. It's basically pieces of tin sitting on concrete stumps. It wouldn't be a hard thing to take out an entire section of road and rail bridge. It's very different from the big solid steel reinforced concrete bridge at Kherson (second photo below). Himars have been steadily punching holes in the concrete road surface, but it would take a lot to destroy a complete span.

 

 

 

[onetrack]

I wouldn't say it was flimsy, but it sure lends itself to easy demolition, with relatively small, shaped charges that can cut straight through the main vertical members quite easily - unlike concrete pre-stressed beams, which take a lot of explosive to break apart. 
Once those members are severed, there's a good chance the bridge will collapse - but if still doesn't, it renders the bridge unusable to heavy military traffic.

[onetrack]

An interesting article below, from Trevor Whittington, CEO of W.A. Farmers Federation (strictly from a farmers point of view, of course), as regards how sanctions are affecting Russian farmers.

 

One thing that continually raises its head is that Russia lost the edge in computerisation and high-tech IT manufacturing in the late 1980's, and has never even reached a modest level of IT self-sufficiency, ever since. They are still very reliant on MS and Apple and U.S. computerisation.

 

They are also still totally reliant on importing the last 5% - 10% of the computerisation and chip requirements from the West, and from Asia, for their local manufacturing industries.

In addition, with so many of the global manufacturers ceasing their manufacturing operations in Russia, this is only making the computer chip situation much worse for them.

 

Of course, the Russians are finding "work-arounds", but so much of that requires "dumbing down" of machines and equipment, and relying on pirated products from China, that may or may not perform to expected standards. They also have the costs of trying to avoid sanctions restrictions, by devious transport and purchasing arrangements.

 

The article reveals how much of an advantage the Ukraine has in a substantial Ukrainian defence industry, a large number of well-trained mechanics, and low labour costs.

 

https://arr.news/2022/10/05/russian-farmers-running-out-of-spare-parts/

 

 

[facthunter]

They are motivated, not "milked" by standover men. Nev

[willedoo]

From what I can figure out, this plan is not to send military advisors to Ukraine, but rather to assist in the overseas training of new Ukrainian recruits. That makes more sense than the advisor thing.

[willedoo]

I was watching a video of Ukrainian soldiers in the trenches. On top of the mound they had a megaphone facing toward the Russian positions blaring patriotic Ukrainian songs. That must really p*ss the orcs off. Nothing like a bit of good old psychological warfare.

[Bruce Tuncks]

That's why I want to see a Ukrainian granny challenge Putin to a duel with AK 47's in a paddock. Of course he would not deign to respond, but I reckon his soldiers would wonder why not.

[facthunter]

Putin's reputational damage is  self-inflicted but there's NO Way he will ever accept that. The HOLE just keeps getting bigger as he digs it. and it's on full view of anyone who cares to watch it honestly. Nev

[willedoo]

I recon there would be no shortage of AK capable grannies willing to take on the challenge.

 

The old AK-47 really took on a generic meaning for all Kalashnikovs over the years. Most of them nowdays are AK-74 variants in 5.45mm, a bit less than .22 calibre. Granny would have a better chance of bowling Putler over with an old AK-74 in 7.62mm (.308), as long as the recoil didn't bowl her over. Probably not a problem; Ukraine has tough grannies.

[willedoo]

That was a typo in the above post; the AK-47 is 7.62mm, not 5.45 like most of the 74 series. The original AK-47 had a solid milled steel receiver which made it heavy. All the later models had the pressed and folded plate receiver. There's still a few original AK-47s knocking about in the Middle East, Africa and a few other countries. They haven't been made since the late 50's. The AK-47 round is 7.62x39 Russian, I doubt it would be as powerful as the longer 7.62 NATO round that the SLR had.

[onetrack]

Yes, there is a slight performance difference between the Russian 7.62 x 39 and the NATO 7.62 x 51, but either way, you aren't going to see really visible performance differences on the battlefield.

After all, if you cop either 7.62 round, you won't be getting up again. Interestingly, we were taught the effective killing range of the SLR was 300M - the U.S. military says it's 800M. and of course, the U.S. Marines claim the range is 1000M.

Taking out any enemy personnel at either 1000M or 800M would be highly dependent on using a dedicated sniper rifle, a perfect firing position, bugger all wind, and the enemy sitting very still.

[Yenn]

From what I see the effective range of any ammo doesn't really come intoconsideration. Most rounds are shot off without any aiming and are intended to make the enemy keep his head down or look mgood on the TV screen.

Should we be intending to use a round that will kill if it hits, or as I would prefer a round that injures and therefore ties up two or three other enemy personnel looking after the injured.

[spacesailor]

O T.

My grandfather  , told about a enimy sniper that watched the troops , leave the latrines,  then when they hitched their pants up .

A Very accurate shot between the legs that took away the crown jewels. 

It took quite a lot of Artillery fire to put a stop to him .

spacesaior

[willedoo]

8 hours ago, Yenn said:

From what I see the effective range of any ammo doesn't really come intoconsideration. Most rounds are shot off without any aiming and are intended to make the enemy keep his head down or look mgood on the TV screen.

Should we be intending to use a round that will kill if it hits, or as I would prefer a round that injures and therefore ties up two or three other enemy personnel looking after the injured.

I think the Geneva Convention covers it fairly well. All military rounds have to be jacketed as far as I know, so they have more chance of going straight through with a minimal exit wound. Non jacketed and dum dum rounds banned.

[willedoo]

8 hours ago, Yenn said:

From what I see the effective range of any ammo doesn't really come intoconsideration. Most rounds are shot off without any aiming and are intended to make the enemy keep his head down

I'd agree with that. Even to intentionally hit a target at 100 metres takes time to ensure accuracy. If you took the time needed to aim, you would likely get hit by those opposite who are spraying them around to keep heads down. That seems to be the main use of rifles in Ukraine. It looks like most infantry on infantry casualties are coming from RPGs, grenades, rockets and mortars.