- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 9/21/22 at 5:40 pm to redstickrick
quote:
Hard disagree with Hertling’s take. I’ve seen the commercials. Our army is filled with weak armed girls raised by lesbians. Russia’s army is filled with Ivan Drago’s and Kurt Russell’s from the Soldier.
I wouldnt base your opinion off some commercial you saw. Largely our army is unchanged from 50 years ago. A bunch of 18-28 year old addicted to nicotine systematically trained into doing what they are told by older people who have some degree of wartime experience and were in their shoes 10 years prior... all of whom have access to a nearly infinite level of weaponry that would destroy most countries in a matter of hours. Which is infinitely more organized than any other military.
It was a joke. We’ve got seven months of evidence that the Russian army is mostly scared young men with inadequate training and support and muslim mercs from Chechnya.
And only people drowning in political agendas could think the caliber of our soldiers has suffered any marked decline from years past.
Posted on 9/21/22 at 6:03 pm to ned nederlander
LINK
Biden’s speech at the UN probably one of the best I’ve ever seen him give. A low bar, but it was well delivered.
“Let us speak plainly. A permanent member of the United Nations Security Council invaded its neighbor, attempted to erase a sovereign state from the map.
Russia has shamelessly violated the core tenets of the United Nations Charter — no more important than the clear prohibition against countries taking the territory of their neighbor by force.
Again, just today, President Putin has made overt nuclear threats against Europe and a reckless disregard for the responsibilities of the non-proliferation regime.
Now Russia is calling — calling up more soldiers to join the fight. And the Kremlin is organizing a sham referenda to try to annex parts of Ukraine, an extremely significant violation of the U.N. Charter.
This world should see these outrageous acts for what they are. Putin claims he had to act because Russia was threatened. But no one threatened Russia, and no one other than Russia sought conflict.
In fact, we warned it was coming. And with many of you, we worked to try to avert it.
Putin’s own words make his true purpose unmistakable. Just before he invaded, Putin asserted — and I quote — Ukraine was “created by Russia” and never had, quote, “real statehood.”
And now we see attacks on schools, railway stations, hospitals, wa- — on centers of Ukrainian history and culture.
In the past, even more horrifying evidence of Russia’s atrocity and war crimes: mass graves uncovered in Izyum; bodies, according to those that excavated those bodies, showing signs of torture.
This war is about extinguishing Ukraine’s right to exist as a state, plain and simple, and Ukraine’s right to exist as a people. Whoever you are, wherever you live, whatever you believe, that should not — that should make your blood run cold.”
Biden’s speech at the UN probably one of the best I’ve ever seen him give. A low bar, but it was well delivered.
“Let us speak plainly. A permanent member of the United Nations Security Council invaded its neighbor, attempted to erase a sovereign state from the map.
Russia has shamelessly violated the core tenets of the United Nations Charter — no more important than the clear prohibition against countries taking the territory of their neighbor by force.
Again, just today, President Putin has made overt nuclear threats against Europe and a reckless disregard for the responsibilities of the non-proliferation regime.
Now Russia is calling — calling up more soldiers to join the fight. And the Kremlin is organizing a sham referenda to try to annex parts of Ukraine, an extremely significant violation of the U.N. Charter.
This world should see these outrageous acts for what they are. Putin claims he had to act because Russia was threatened. But no one threatened Russia, and no one other than Russia sought conflict.
In fact, we warned it was coming. And with many of you, we worked to try to avert it.
Putin’s own words make his true purpose unmistakable. Just before he invaded, Putin asserted — and I quote — Ukraine was “created by Russia” and never had, quote, “real statehood.”
And now we see attacks on schools, railway stations, hospitals, wa- — on centers of Ukrainian history and culture.
In the past, even more horrifying evidence of Russia’s atrocity and war crimes: mass graves uncovered in Izyum; bodies, according to those that excavated those bodies, showing signs of torture.
This war is about extinguishing Ukraine’s right to exist as a state, plain and simple, and Ukraine’s right to exist as a people. Whoever you are, wherever you live, whatever you believe, that should not — that should make your blood run cold.”
Posted on 9/21/22 at 6:38 pm to ned nederlander
Just for the other perspective
@powerfultakes
Don't really agree with this assessment namely because most of the "negative" for Ukraine things he brings up are ALSO negative for Russia and it really doesn't look like China wants shite to do with Russia. With that said still think it's worth looking at the other side of the coin from time to time
@powerfultakes
quote:
RUSSIA UKRAINE WAR UPDATE
Russia's primary problem is lack of manpower. Since Russians have no combat effectiveness advantage over Ukrainians, this meant old SMO was to be a static war of attrition trading Russian munitions advantage for Ukrainian manpower advantage
Could work, but take a long time; & would be contingent on Ukrainians not leveling the munitions disparity and further increasing their combat effectiveness advantage; both very plausible developments in light of NATO provisioning it with progressively higher end weapons systems.
However, for a state with a 5x population advantage, fighting this way is absurd, akin to a strategy video game achievement challenge "conquer Ukraine with 200k troops" (a point originally made by @Annatar_I). Doable in principle, but risky.
Introducing 300k conscripts and reservists by formally incorporating LDNR & Kherson into RF will flat out exclude events like Kharkov, where Ukrainians were able to concentrate enough force to outnumber the Russians, break the Russian lines, and achieve operational level victory.
If those 10k Ukrainian assault troops were facing 10k Russian troops (2.5x), not 4k troops, then that breakthrough would never have occurred. Indeed, had that been the case at the start, there would have been no retreats from any territories east of the Dnieper.
As repeatedly noted, where there's rough Russo-Ukrainian numerical parity, combined with more Russia-favorable terrain & greater combat effectiveness of southern Russian troops results, i.e. Kherson, the frontline is static & loss ratios are heavily stacked against Ukrainians.
Raising the Russo-Ukrainian manpower engaged ratio from 1:1 to 2:1 (even more if Luka finally commits), if successful, is enough to secure rear areas as pointed out months ago twitter.com/Annatar_I/stat…, while freeing up more experienced units for renewed offensive operations.
To equip and munition this expanded force Russia will need to transition to more of a war economy. There's no doubt that this can be done, as familiarity with military production statistics in WWs. Also contra popular delusions military equipment doesn't rely on high end chips.
Will NATO (the US & gasless Europe) themselves transition to a war economy to fill the gap for Ukraine?
Note that one of their core "value added" contributions, intelligence/surveillance services, has been going full blast from the very start, so is already maxed out.
So only things left now is either emptying out weapons stockpiles, of progressively higher end equipment at that, before it becomes necessary to transition to war economy themselves (crimping already straining consumer welfare in favor of increased military production).
So long as that doesn't happen, Russia can now easily win with its own resources, hence why I raised my assessment of its victory (Novorossiya+) from 60-70% in the aftermath of the Kharkov Offensive back to close to 90%. twitter.com/powerfultakes/…
Ukrainian manpower is also ultimately constrained by willingness to fight. They think they are winning now, so plenty of volunteers or at least no strong anti-mobilization resistance. Renewed Russian advances will drain that pool even as it continues to be physically drained.
Which as I have argued has likely been occurring at a rate 2-3x that of Russia in absolute terms (and consequently 10-15x in relative population terms). twitter.com/powerfultakes/…
Old conclusion holds: Eventually, manpower attrition will force Ukraine to fold, or go totalitarian.
One further important trump card is China. Imagine thousands of Type 96 tanks ferried across the new bridge from Heihe into Blagoveshchensk, every Russian gun with a Holosun optic, etc. $5T economy (+Iran) > $4T economy (just Russia), but $30T economy (+China) is >> still.
Obviously it would benefit Russia by radically increasing the already big materiel preponderance it enjoys over Ukraine.
But would China commit? Can't say, but it's clearly within its interests, as Western total technological sanctions are coming either which way.
Moreover, if China is serious about the Taiwan separatism problem it should welcome the opportunity, after all this allows it to increase its own military production (both materiel & capacity) while maintaining an alibi (supplying Russia) until whenever the time is ripe (2027?).
But this is speculation. Major Chinese military aid (as seems to already be happening with Iranian drones) would shorten the war (and result in fewer Ukrainian dead), but it is not a sine qua non of Russian victory short of the Western bloc ramping up to war economy itself.
Don't really agree with this assessment namely because most of the "negative" for Ukraine things he brings up are ALSO negative for Russia and it really doesn't look like China wants shite to do with Russia. With that said still think it's worth looking at the other side of the coin from time to time
Posted on 9/21/22 at 7:30 pm to StormyMcMan
Yeah, thanks for posting it. It's mostly stupid, but worth reading.
His idea of putting Russia on a war economy so that it can make more weapons? That would have been a good idea in March. The idea that, now, it will lead to Russia growing an advantage over Ukraine weaponry and equipment? Insane.
NATO is not running out of weapons to give to Ukraine. In fact, a number of nations have modern tanks and armored vehicles in storage, unused. They haven't yet been given to Ukraine because:
1) We prioritized other weapons, and the logistics of delivering and integrating new weapons systems takes time.
2) Initially, NATO countries were afraid that any weapons delivered to Ukraine might be lost if Russia won the war, or that Ukraine would use them poorly. Obviously, the confidence in Ukraine has grown tremendously since then, and deliveries of new weapons systems happen regularly.
3) Escalation. Early in the war, there was real concern about a Russian reaction to delivery of NATO weapons to Ukraine. But now, the Russian military has been revealed to be comically inept. No one is afraid of Russia any more in any way except for nuclear weapons. And Putin knows that he cannot win a nuclear conflict. So the West has continued to step up.
In contrast, the West has responded every time that Russia has escalated the conflict. When Russia bombed the drama theater in Mariupol, when the horrors of Bucha we're revealed, when Russia murdered and mutilated POWs -- all that caused NATO to give more weapons, and HARM and HIMARS completely changed the way the war has been fought.
And this stupid annexation is a huge escalation. I don't know if it's going to mean NATO tanks, fighter aircraft, ATACMS, or all of the above, but it's going to result in a much faster Ukrainian victory, because Russia cannot be allowed to succeed with such a plan.
His idea of putting Russia on a war economy so that it can make more weapons? That would have been a good idea in March. The idea that, now, it will lead to Russia growing an advantage over Ukraine weaponry and equipment? Insane.
NATO is not running out of weapons to give to Ukraine. In fact, a number of nations have modern tanks and armored vehicles in storage, unused. They haven't yet been given to Ukraine because:
1) We prioritized other weapons, and the logistics of delivering and integrating new weapons systems takes time.
2) Initially, NATO countries were afraid that any weapons delivered to Ukraine might be lost if Russia won the war, or that Ukraine would use them poorly. Obviously, the confidence in Ukraine has grown tremendously since then, and deliveries of new weapons systems happen regularly.
3) Escalation. Early in the war, there was real concern about a Russian reaction to delivery of NATO weapons to Ukraine. But now, the Russian military has been revealed to be comically inept. No one is afraid of Russia any more in any way except for nuclear weapons. And Putin knows that he cannot win a nuclear conflict. So the West has continued to step up.
In contrast, the West has responded every time that Russia has escalated the conflict. When Russia bombed the drama theater in Mariupol, when the horrors of Bucha we're revealed, when Russia murdered and mutilated POWs -- all that caused NATO to give more weapons, and HARM and HIMARS completely changed the way the war has been fought.
And this stupid annexation is a huge escalation. I don't know if it's going to mean NATO tanks, fighter aircraft, ATACMS, or all of the above, but it's going to result in a much faster Ukrainian victory, because Russia cannot be allowed to succeed with such a plan.
Posted on 9/21/22 at 7:36 pm to StormyMcMan
quote:
But would China commit? Can't say, but it's clearly within its interests, as Western total technological sanctions are coming either which way.
Also stupid. No, the West is not sanctioning China ... because China is not providing material aid to Russia's invasion.
China's economy is suffering under the effects of its "Zero COVID" policy, and it absolutely cannot afford Western sanctions now.
Russia is currently in the process of making itself an economic vassal of China, and China has no need to provide Russia with military aid to profit off of the war.
Posted on 9/21/22 at 7:41 pm to StormyMcMan
quote:
Will NATO (the US & gasless Europe) themselves transition to a war economy to fill the gap for Ukraine?
Note that one of their core "value added" contributions, intelligence/surveillance services, has been going full blast from the very start, so is already maxed out.
So only things left now is either emptying out weapons stockpiles, of progressively higher end equipment at that, before it becomes necessary to transition to war economy themselves (crimping already straining consumer welfare in favor of increased military production).
The joke is on him. The US has been spending on its military at a "war economy" rate since the 1980's. What we contribute to Ukraine will be largely contained costs (training and intelligence) and the rest would be no more than a tiny fraction of what we spend every single year.
Posted on 9/21/22 at 7:43 pm to Burhead
quote:
@visegrad24 Due to security reasons, Latvia will not issue humanitarian or other types of visas to those Russian citizens who avoid mobilization, nor will it change the border crossing restrictions for Russian citizens with Schengen visas introduced since September 19th, says Latvian FM.
Was wondering when this would come. Right or wrong from a global humanitarian standpoint, it’s the smart move for security.
Posted on 9/21/22 at 7:47 pm to StormyMcMan
quote:
Russia can now easily win with its own resources, hence why I raised my assessment of its victory (Novorossiya+) from 60-70% in the aftermath of the Kharkov Offensive back to close to 90%.
Curious what this guy categorizes as winning. If it’s taking all the Donbas, maybe… Russia still will lack air support for offensive operations
Posted on 9/21/22 at 7:58 pm to LSUPilot07
Pre 1960 while on vacation we visited a friend of mom's who was married to an AF pilot and then living in Sumter. We also visited them a few years later in Biloxi. They moved to Laffy after he retired (1970's) and where she was from
Posted on 9/21/22 at 7:59 pm to GOP_Tiger
quote:
And this stupid annexation is a huge escalation. I don't know if it's going to mean NATO tanks, fighter aircraft, ATACMS, or all of the above, but it's going to result in a much faster Ukrainian victory, because Russia cannot be allowed to succeed with such a plan.
Russia is still strong enough that IF Russia could stop tripping over its own dick it could do whatever it wants in eastern Ukraine and no one - not even the US - could stop them. There’s no “allowing” them to do anything in Donbas. It’s just they’re too incompetent to stop tripping over their own dick so they can’t do anything. In other words, it has nothing to do with us being so powerful and everything to do with them just sucking that bad.
Posted on 9/21/22 at 8:03 pm to BrianKellyRespecter
quote:
Russia is still strong enough that IF Russia could stop tripping over its own dick it could do whatever it wants in eastern Ukraine and no one - not even the US - could stop them. There’s no “allowing” them to do anything in Donbas. It’s just they’re too incompetent to stop tripping over their own dick so they can’t do anything. In other words, it has nothing to do with us being so powerful and everything to do with them just sucking that bad.
I get what you're saying, but the issues Russia is experiencing with its military go far beyond tripping over their own dick. They are suffering from systemic problems that can't be corrected in the short term and will take YEARS to rectify.
Training, tactics, logistics, and a lack of an NCO corps aren't flip-a-switch issues. This isn't a change the general out and everything will be ok situation, Russia has done that multiple times already.
This post was edited on 9/21/22 at 8:05 pm
Posted on 9/21/22 at 8:05 pm to BrianKellyRespecter
Not really the case. The tanks remaining to mobilize are T-62's which the US beat the crap out of in Desert Storm. Their ammo is older than Methuselah and much of it misfires or doesn't explode on contact if rocket or artillery shells. Many of its premier units have been decimated and the conscripts will get 10 days of training to show how to handle a firearm and say "Yes Sir Commander Ivan" and not much more.
Posted on 9/21/22 at 8:09 pm to CitizenK
Another major problem that Russia has, is that its equipment sucks and they don't maintain it.
Things like discipline and maintenance are institutional mindsets, the US Army has those, but the Russian Army does not. That isn't something you create overnight, that will take a long time because to be effective at those things will take several cycles of military leadership. It's simply a culture the Russians don't posses.
Things like discipline and maintenance are institutional mindsets, the US Army has those, but the Russian Army does not. That isn't something you create overnight, that will take a long time because to be effective at those things will take several cycles of military leadership. It's simply a culture the Russians don't posses.
Posted on 9/21/22 at 8:16 pm to Chromdome35
quote:
Things like discipline and maintenance are institutional mindsets, the US Army has those, but the Russian Army does not.
Gots to get that PMCS done.
Posted on 9/21/22 at 8:17 pm to Chromdome35
All Russian tanks are built using the same basic design. The guns are reloaded via an autoloader that sits underneath the crew compartment. It is vulnerable to penetration and cooking off. There are hundreds of videos of Russian tanks blowing their turrets off after being hit.
Not an issue that can be fixed quickly, I don't know how long it takes to design, build prototypes, test, redesign, etc... but I would bet it's 5-10 years. That's not going to help them in Ukraine.
Fortunately for Russia, Ukraine is using the same tanks with the same vulnerability.
Not an issue that can be fixed quickly, I don't know how long it takes to design, build prototypes, test, redesign, etc... but I would bet it's 5-10 years. That's not going to help them in Ukraine.
Fortunately for Russia, Ukraine is using the same tanks with the same vulnerability.
Posted on 9/21/22 at 8:20 pm to Chromdome35
quote:
I don't know how long it takes to design, build prototypes, test, redesign, etc... but I would bet it's 5-10 years.
They are 12 years in on the T-14 and we see where that is at.
Posted on 9/21/22 at 8:26 pm to Chromdome35
quote:
All Russian tanks are built using the same basic design. The guns are reloaded via an autoloader that sits underneath the crew compartment.
As a tanker, I hated the autoloader, 3 man tank crew concept. Give me a strong 18-21 year old to feed the beast. With practice, he can get around the 3 second range.
Disarm the main gun while pressing the knee switch that opens the ammo door. Pop the metal retainer piece with your hand, the round pops out a few inches. Pull it out, disengage your knee from the actuator, turn around and load the main gun, arm the main gun, yell "UP" and get the hell out of the way of the breech. That recoil doesn't play.
This post was edited on 9/21/22 at 8:30 pm
Posted on 9/21/22 at 8:29 pm to tigeraddict
quote:
least russia forget how many weapons were supplied to North Korea during the korean war, how many weapons were supplied ot N. Vietnam and Laos during the Vietnam war, how many weapons/training was supplied to Taliban during Afghan war, to sunni during Iraq war
Thank you. Didn’t those aholes put bounties on our troops too? In Afghanistan?
Posted on 9/21/22 at 8:34 pm to BrianKellyRespecter
quote:
Russia is still strong enough that IF Russia could stop tripping over its own dick it could do whatever it wants in eastern Ukraine and no one - not even the US - could stop them. There’s no “allowing” them to do anything in Donbas.
I absolutely thought this when the war started. Now I’m convinced that it would take a drastic change of tactics and culture for Russia to have any significant chance of success anywhere in Ukraine.
Page 1764 of 5046
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News