Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
5 hours ago, red750 said:

Putin protection officer defects and reveals despot's intense paranoia

I see also that the Russian security services are confiscating the passports of government employees and those who work in critical industries. They're getting paranoid about defections. Mordor is crumbling.

  • Informative 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

Zelinski, Nev, is the only rational choice. The the 2 will soon be dead or jailed.

 

At least Zelensky has friends, the other two clowns only have each other.

 

PUTIN-LUKASHENKO-BELARUS.jpg

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
Posted
2 hours ago, facthunter said:

"Up the guts with TANKS" didn't seem to work, either. They are mobile crematoriums.  Nev

They work ok when used properly as part of a combined arms operation, like the Ukrainians did when they took back most of Kharkiv province. They had suppressing artillery fire, while the engineer crews went ahead of the tanks clearing mines. The tank regiment commander controlled all the tank movements remotely using drones to relay battlefield information back to the command post. Via good comms, he was able to direct the tanks, alert them to targets and warn them of threats. That negated a lot of the usual driving blind aspect of tanks. The tanks were the iron fist that routed enemy infantry, with Ukrainian infantry following behind in APC's and armoured fighting vehicles. In turn, the infantry was able to support and protect the tanks with ATGM's etc.. All textbook stuff, although it did help that they were fighting idiots.

 

Then there's the Russian way of using tanks -  drive the tank around singly or in small unsupported groups in a totally ad hoc manner until you get blown up. If the lead tanks drives into a minefield and gets blown up, follow suit. The Russians have been completely brain dead in their use of tanks and have squandered a large percentage of Russia's tank fleet and crews for very little gain. Mobile crematorium is a good description if they are operated by Russians. They don't seem to grasp the concept of combined arms warfare. They think they have enough men and equipment to simply headbutt their way through. The problem for them is that technology has made headbutting obsolete.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Posted

That is an interesting charge when you consider days before the invasion, Zelensky himself was trying to calm nerves that the Russians wouldn't invade. If they are going to move forward post war with the west, they will have to learn to lose their ways adopted from years of Russian influence.

  • Like 1
  • Informative 1
Posted
6 hours ago, nomadpete said:

Is this a step toward draining the swamp?

It could be; I guess we won't know until more details are available. On the face of it, he's only charged with dereliction of duty by failing to evacuate the plane after being asked to do so. He hasn't had any treason charges, so possibly he's not one of the pro-Russian officials that have been purged. An example of that was the president of aircraft engine manufacturer Motor Sich, Vyacheslav Boguslaev, who was charged with treason for supplying helicopter engines to the Russians.

  • Like 1
  • Informative 1
Posted

Reading about how russians surrendering has increased, makes me even more sure that treating russians well if they surrender is a good idea. I would have them stay in a confiscated ukranian oligarch's mansion , wined and dined, and then repatriated to be treated cruelly by russians at the borders. ( on a prisoner exchange of course).

Yes, the spies among them would wonder what to report.

  • Like 2
Posted

Earlier in the week, some footage emerged of Ukrainian pilots training in the U.S. on A-10 Thunderbolts. You would have to assume if they are training on the type that the U.S. intends to supply Ukraine with Warthogs at some stage. I remember some time back, they were going to mothball the A-10's, but then decided to keep them going for a while. The closest aircraft to the A-10 role in Ukraine is the Su-25, but it's hard to make a comparison. They share similar roles, but both have advantages and disadvantages over each other.

 

In a combat scenario, the Su-25 is much more survivable. They are a tough bird and can have an engine taken out and still fly back to base. The surface to air missiles are heat seeking and will often strike at the rear of the engine. With the high position of the A-10 engines, the tailplane would be unlikely to survive. I think at this stage, the Ukrainians would take anything that was offered. In the post war future, I'd think it would make sense for Ukraine to design their own ground attack aircraft. They already have the expertise of Antonov and Ivchenko engines; they could build an improved, modernised version of the Su-25 without too much trouble. One thing they are not short of is technical skill, as a lot of Soviet military equipment was designed, developed and built in Ukraine. Ship building, tanks and armoured vehicles, missile systems, aircraft - they've done it all.

  • Like 1
  • Informative 1
Posted

On the subject of Ukrainian shipbuilding, the Russian navy carrier Admiral Kuznetsov and Russia's Slava class cruisers were built in Ukraine. As was the intended sister carrier to the Kuznetsov that Ukraine sold to China and is now the Chinese carrier Liaoning.

  • Informative 1
Posted

A major reason Putin want Ukraine back under Russia’s control: it had much of the design and industrial talent of the USSR.

 

Britain is in a similar situation; much of the Royal Navy is built by the Scots, so Scottish independence would by problematic.

  • Agree 1
  • Informative 1
Posted
On 05/03/2023 at 3:12 PM, onetrack said:

Tracked vehicles with flat sealed undersides actually do quite well in muddy slop, they just paddle along quite happily - although speed and fuel consumption is adversely affected.

 

In Vietnam, the M113 APC's, and the Centurions, had to put up with slop on a regular basis, in the wet season. This performance (below) was right after we had about 150mm overnight from the tail end of Typhoon Kate in Oct 1970. If you stepped off a machine in this ground after a heavy rain, you sank up to above your knees.

 

We had to lay down Marsden Matting (PSP) to make a boardwalk out to the Landing and Refuelling pad for the choppers. You can see how far the oil drums sank into the ground, they were at ground level before the rain.

 

 

On the subject of the M113, I read of the recent passing of Ray De Vere MC, OAM. Formerly Captain Ray De Vere, cavalry troop leader at the Battle of Binh Ba in 1969, where he was awarded the Military Cross. He received the OAM for his later service to veterans.

  • Informative 2
Posted
50 minutes ago, onetrack said:

Our local PNG war hero and former MP, Bill Grayden is still going at 102, but I understand he's quite frail now. He marched with us strongly up until his late 90's. He's the oldest Federal MP still alive.

I remember in the west, you also had the member of parliament who lost both legs in Vietnam; I can't remember his name. I seem to remember he lost them after dismounting, then turning back to free his Lieutenant who had caught his webbing on something, stepping on a mine in the process.

  • Like 2
Posted

On the subject of Scottish shipbuilding, I reckon it was a long time ago that they were big in shipbuilding. Before WW1, they were the  best in the world.

In fact the Gallipoli campaign was caused by Churchill " confiscating " 2 ships that the Turks had ordered and foolishly thought were theirs. This was why they were persuaded by the Germans to enter the war against the British.

  • Informative 2
Posted

Churchill had a difficult decision to make: if he allowed the Turks to take delivery of these new British-built warships, they might have been used against them. (The French did someting similar to Russia not so long ago.)

 

A quarter century later, Churchill had a far worse dilemma: what to do about the powerful French fleet, which after their surrender, would likely be used to greatly boost Hitler’s naval strength. After pig-headed French Admiral refused to bring his warships to the British side (he was reportedly miffed that the Royal Navy sent a mere captain to negotiate, rather than someone of equal rank) Churchill ordered them all sunk. The resulting carnage haunted him.

  • Like 2
  • Informative 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...