- 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
re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict
Posted on 12/22/22 at 10:03 am to Darth_Vader
Posted on 12/22/22 at 10:03 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
these reports are true, then the Russian situation is dire. First off, most modern tanks lack the required sighting and fire control systems to lay down accurate indirect fire. You can’t just point a cannon up on the air and have it fire on targets it can’t see and expect to land anywhere close to where it needs to go. It is possible, but it takes specialized sighting equipment. And even more importantly, it takes specialized training for the tank crew in indirect fire techniques. Considering the level of training we’ve seen thus far in this war, I’m highly doubtful the Russians have tank crews either equipped or trained for indirect fire. And on top of this, modern tank rounds are not designed to do anything via plunging, indirect fire. Even HE rounds are made to be fired directly at targets like bunkers or buildings. Other tanks rounds like HEAT and APFSDS (Sabot) are totally useless as far as indirect fire is concerned. I would take reports of Russians using tanks in an indirect fire role with a huge grain of salt
I’m not going to argue with anything you said because I don’t know enough about it to argue. However, I do have enough contacts (both Ukrainian and NATO observers) on the ground in Ukraine to know that both Russia and Ukraine have a “f**k it let’s try it attitude” when it comes to unorthodox ideas. I’m just speculating but I wouldn’t be surprised if a Russian officer just mentioned it and other Russian officers ran with the idea. After all the months long Russian head on attacks on the strategically insignificant Severodonetsk and Bakhmut (which could have been bypassed and encircled during the summer when the ground was firm) didn’t make sense either.
0
Posted on 12/22/22 at 10:07 am to GOP_Tiger
quote:
It's not completely made up. Some Russian Telegram account showed one of their tanks doing this. The question is how widespread it is, and whether it represented a unique situation in a particular area of the frontline, or whether it was more representative of a general shortage of artillery shells.
Well, again, as I said above, for a tank to lay down effective indirect fire it takes two things:
1. Specialized sighing and fire control systems for indirect fire
2. A tank crew trained to know how to lay down indirect fire.
Russia might have equipped some tanks for this. It has been Red Army doctrine going back to before WWII for there to be a limited indirect fire role for some tanks. But your average T-72 isn’t set up for it. And on their newer tanks like the T-80 and T-90, I do think the indirect fire role has been completely abandoned.
But that still leaves the matter of crew training. From my observations, it’s patently obvious the average Russian tank crew had only rudimentary training. I’d compare the average Russian tank crew to being on the level of an American tank crew in their second week of Armor School.
So, if the Russians are attempting indirect fire with their tanks, all they’re doing is wasting tank rounds.
Posted on 12/22/22 at 10:07 am to WeeWee
quote:
Except for the fact that the USA signed a treaty to assist Ukraine with defending its territorial integrity. So the USA actually has a reason to be involved.
We did not sign a treaty or anything resembling a treaty. Try again.
quote:
The Budapest Memorandum was negotiated at political level, but it is not entirely clear whether the instrument is devoid entirely of legal provisions. It refers to assurances, but unlike guarantees, it does not impose a legal obligation of military assistance on its parties.[1][46] According to Stephen MacFarlane, a professor of international relations, "It gives signatories justification if they take action, but it does not force anyone to act in Ukraine."[45] In the US, neither the George H. W. Bush administration nor the Clinton administration was prepared to give a military commitment to Ukraine, and they did not believe the US Senate would ratify an international treaty and so the memorandum was adopted in more limited terms.[46] The memorandum has a requirement of consultation among the parties "in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning the ... commitments" set out in the memorandum.
This post was edited on 12/22/22 at 10:09 am
Posted on 12/22/22 at 10:08 am to StormyMcMan
quote:
How dare the US actually live up to its agreements
You should read the link you posted and see exactly how "binding" this memorandum actually was.
Posted on 12/22/22 at 10:11 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
Well you’re comparing apples to oranges here. Tanks have a far different battlefield role than artillery. Tanks are a direct fire weapons system meant for the front line in direct contact with the enemy. Artillery is indirect fire weapons meant to be miles behind the line and not in direct contact with enemy forces. Artillery does have direct fire capability. But it’s only meant for last resort defense if enemy forces have broken though the front and the artillery unit doesn’t have time to bug out.
the discussion was about using tanks as artillery which Russia has in fact done.
Posted on 12/22/22 at 10:12 am to BugAC
quote:
You should read the link you posted and see exactly how "binding" this memorandum actually was.
quote:
It gives signatories justification if they take action, but it does not force anyone to act in Ukraine."[45] In the US, neither the George H. W. Bush administration nor the Clinton administration was prepared to give a military commitment to Ukraine, and they did not believe the US Senate would ratify an international treaty and so the memorandum was adopted in more limited terms.[46] The memorandum has a requirement of consultation among the parties "in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning the ... commitments" set out in the memorandum.
The Budapest Memorandum is as binding as the State Department and Congress determine that it is. The State Departments under Clinton, GWB, Obama, Trump, and Biden and both democrat and republican controlled Congresses have all said that it’s binding. It doesn’t require is to put troops on the ground like Article 5 would but it does require us to assist Ukraine with assistance that we deem reasonable. That is what we are doing. So you are the one who is wrong.
This post was edited on 12/22/22 at 10:15 am
Posted on 12/22/22 at 10:13 am to CitizenK
See my subsequent posts where I discuss in detail the use of tanks in an indirect fire role.
Posted on 12/22/22 at 10:13 am to BugAC
quote:
You should read the link you posted and see exactly how "binding" this memorandum actually was.
The problem is that the WORLD will see that the USA is no one to be friends with and turn towards nations like China and Russia. This may keep China from collapsing on its own, with Russia as one of its vasal states.
Posted on 12/22/22 at 10:16 am to BugAC
quote:
I'm pissed that you regressives think that my tax dollars should go to solve a problem created by EUROPE.
What? Do you understand anything about Post-WWII geopolitics?
Posted on 12/22/22 at 10:17 am to BugAC
There’s a board to discuss politics, and this thread to discuss the war, strategy, tactics and what leaders are saying and doing.
Yes, sometimes things overlap, but a discussion of how much we should be giving or spending and what our role should be is purely political.
Start a thread on the PT board and discuss it there if you want. This thread is not the place.
Yes, sometimes things overlap, but a discussion of how much we should be giving or spending and what our role should be is purely political.
Start a thread on the PT board and discuss it there if you want. This thread is not the place.
Posted on 12/22/22 at 10:24 am to StormyMcMan
quote:YEAH LIKE THE USA CONSTITUTION
How dare the US actually live up to its agreements
but wait the little sawed off actor comes first with money to target Russia in proxy
and the little sawed off bitch to go shopping spree in Paris
and DAVOS just around the corner
Posted on 12/22/22 at 10:25 am to crazy4lsu
quote:You don't.
What? Do you understand anything about Post-WWII geopolitics?
Posted on 12/22/22 at 10:26 am to JJJimmyJimJames
quote:
You don't.
Lol.
Posted on 12/22/22 at 10:30 am to crazy4lsu
This thread has gone Full on Political. Amazing to see it hasn't been anchored yet. Chicken where art thou?
Posted on 12/22/22 at 10:32 am to BananaManCan
quote:
This thread has gone Full on Political. Amazing to see it hasn't been anchored yet. Chicken where art thou?
It's fine when the tards aren't here. You seem like a tard though, asking for it to be anchored.
Posted on 12/22/22 at 10:32 am to BananaManCan
This is pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.
You liberals should be ashamed of yourselves for supporting this.
You liberals should be ashamed of yourselves for supporting this.
Posted on 12/22/22 at 10:34 am to BananaManCan
Settle down. It's just drive-by posters are coming in here to troll after getting rustled by Zelensky's speech.
Posted on 12/22/22 at 10:35 am to Oates Mustache
imagine forming an opinion on geopolitics based off memes
god damn y’all are stupid
god damn y’all are stupid
Posted on 12/22/22 at 10:35 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
It's fine when the tards aren't here. You seem like a tard though, asking for it to be anchored.
Guess it's natural for cucks like yourself to attack others that don't share your opinions huh?
Posted on 12/22/22 at 10:37 am to BananaManCan
quote:
Guess it's natural for cucks like yourself to attack others that don't share your opinions huh?
Lol, your bitch-arse wanted this thread to be anchored because of it being brigading by people upset by Zelensky's speech yesterday. Nicely done dumbass.
Page 2254 of 3861
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News