Ukraine

[Blackhawk]

It does leave me wondering if, aside from the nukes, the USSR was always a paper tiger. Did the new Russia slip that much? Or was the 'conventional' element of the cold war always just bluffing and proxies?

[Holman]

It does leave me wondering if, aside from the nukes, the USSR was always a paper tiger. Did the new Russia slip that much? Or was the 'conventional' element of the cold war always just bluffing and proxies?

It's hard to know how strong the Cold War USSR actually was, although I've always read that a late-1970s or early-1980s invasion of Western Europe was NATO's genuine nightmare.

Since the fall of the USSR, though, it's been generally understood that corruption has severely undermined the Russian military. The joke is always that Moscow's modern military strength consists mainly of Oligarch villas in Greece and Italy and Dubai.

[Blackhawk]

Charge of the dacha brigade?

[GreenGoo]

but also by Russia’s overall incompetence.

Yes, definitely. I love it. I hope Putin's ego takes a beating every day the world sees them fail.

[GreenGoo]

It's also relevant that this wasn't just a straight Ukraine-Russia matchup. Russia's actions resulted in them isolating themselves, while at the same time Ukraine gained worldwide support. This was a limited version of Russia vs NATO.

Perhaps, but no one has boots on the ground. Ukraine is in this alone against the Goliath. Sure the world is providing some of the best stones ever invented, but in the end David has to stand up to Russia alone. And David has had to beg the world more than once. I feel like that's shameful for the rest of us.

[GreenGoo]

It does leave me wondering if, aside from the nukes, the USSR was always a paper tiger. Did the new Russia slip that much? Or was the 'conventional' element of the cold war always just bluffing and proxies?

Come on man. We have had experience with their fighter craft and their tanks, their subs and their ships. They were at least on par at one point, if not ahead. Even if the US always held an edge, there was reason to take them seriously. Paper tiger? US intelligence didn't think so, so why would we?

True, they are showing their true colours today, but today isn't 4 decades ago. It's like the mafia trying to run the country for years. Of course things are going to start falling apart. Just how many shoddy concrete contracts can you milk before things start to fall down? And they've had decades to let it happen.

I don't have any specialized knowledge. I'm not a scholar on Russia nor a military specialist. But I was paying attention, particularly to any technology leaked to the west, and they were competitive.

They beat the US into space, I shouldn't have to remind anyone. That alone was terrifying for the west.

[Blackhawk]

It's also relevant that this wasn't just a straight Ukraine-Russia matchup. Russia's actions resulted in them isolating themselves, while at the same time Ukraine gained worldwide support. This was a limited version of Russia vs NATO.

Perhaps, but no one has boots on the ground. Ukraine is in this alone against the Goliath. Sure the world is providing some of the best stones ever invented, but in the end David has to stand up to Russia alone. And David has had to beg the world more than once. I feel like that's shameful for the rest of us.

Which is why I said 'limited.'

[GreenGoo]

I struggle to consider that limited. Nato supply chains to the Ukraine risk very nearly nothing. I feel like you have to take part in the conflict in order to be part of the conflict, if you get my meaning.

Bringing people out of the Ukraine to train them and then sending them back is barely being involved. We would do this even if no war was being fought.

Now we do have some boots on the ground doing in place training. So yes, limited. Very, very limited, given the scale of Nato and the number of boots in place.

Anyway, yes, it's not full blown Nato vs Russia. We agree on that.

[Max Peck]

I can't really interpret the actual fighting as being a microcosm of NATO vs Russia in any meaningful way, given that Ukraine can't actually apply NATO doctrine due to the inability to achieve air superiority. They're forced to fight, especially on the offense, in a manner that NATO simply wouldn't undertake.

Speaking of air superiority, it appears that Ukraine has again successfully struck one of the vaunted S-400 SAM sites in Crimea.

https://nitter.net/Osinttechnical/statu ... 55025296#m

We now have confirmation that Ukrainian forces successfully hit the Yevpatoriya Russian S-400 battery this morning, catastrophically destroying at least one TEL and support vehicle.

[Carpet_pissr]

They beat the US into space, I shouldn't have to remind anyone. That alone was terrifying for the west.

Yeah, Sputnik was apparently quite the scare.

Not sure we have anyone here that would remember the vibe in the country when they launched it, but I remember seeing a documentary about how the entire country was freaked out about a Russian satellite constantly overhead, doing God knows what.

[Isgrimnur]

If you can put something in orbit, making it deorbit to land where you want is a smaller problem.

[Blackhawk]

I can't really interpret the actual fighting as being a microcosm of NATO vs Russia in any meaningful way

Ok, then - how about 'extended NATO weapons field testing.' Planning it all out on paper based on intelligence is one thing, but actually putting US/NATO equipment into the field against the best that Russia can bring to bear has to be bringing in tons of useful data.

[Max Peck]

There are reports today that Ramzan Kadyrov, Putin's Chechen warlord, is critically ill and may have fallen into a coma.

There are no reports clarifying who, exactly, is alleged to have positioned the coma below his window.

[Blackhawk]

There are reports today that Ramzan Kadyrov, Putin's Chechen warlord, is critically ill and may have fallen into a coma.

There are no reports clarifying who, exactly, is alleged to have positioned the coma below his window.

Oh, come on, Russia doesn't throw everyone out of a window. After all, windows don't make you sick.

Umbrellas do.

[Unagi]

There are no reports clarifying who, exactly, is alleged to have made the tea.


That was my answer.

[Max Peck]

The silver lining for Russia is that the Kilo submarine that was damaged in Sevastopol won't need to be towed to a drydock for repairs. That should save some time...

https://nitter.net/Osinttechnical/statu ... 03957528#m

Images have leaked (presumably by shipyard workers) of the Russian Improved Kilo–class attack submarine Rostov na Donu (B-237), hit by a Ukrainian cruise missile strike in the Sevastopol Shipyard drydocks.

Damage is catastrophic.

[GreenGoo]

Effing Germans. Raise a few subs from the ocean floor and refurbish them, and now everyone thinks any damage is repairable.

That said, is Ukraine being invaded by subs? Is there any strategic value to this target or is it just to make the invasion as costly as possible?

[malchior]

Effing Germans. Raise a few subs from the ocean floor and refurbish them, and now everyone thinks any damage is repairable.

I love these comments. So many idiots. As if a modern sub having it's pressure hull compromised and the top blown off doesn't indicate catastrophic damage throughout the interior.

That said, is Ukraine being invaded by subs? Is there any strategic value to this target or is it just to make the invasion as costly as possible?

More the latter. You could imagine subs controlling the water way but in reality they aren't really necessary.

[GreenGoo]

I love these comments. So many idiots. As if a modern sub having it's pressure hull compromised and the top blown off doesn't indicate catastrophic damage throughout the interior.

The problem for me is that I don't know that community at all. Those comments could be pure sarcasm. The second problem is I don't know what can be repaired or not.

So I'm completely clueless when reading those comments. Are they a joke? Are they true? I have no idea. Hah.

[malchior]

I love these comments. So many idiots. As if a modern sub having it's pressure hull compromised and the top blown off doesn't indicate catastrophic damage throughout the interior.

The problem for me is that I don't know that community at all. Those comments could be pure sarcasm. The second problem is I don't know what can be repaired or not.

The guy talking about Germans raising submarines...I clicked into his profile. He boosted a Uri Gellar post talking about an alien race who altered our DNA and also posts about 'remote viewing' ('The Men Who Stare at Goats' type stuff). So...

So I'm completely clueless when reading those comments. Are they a joke? Are they true? I have no idea. Hah.

That's the problem - so much "discourse" is just polluted with entirely too online nutjobs bombarding us with junk data.

[Max Peck]

That said, is Ukraine being invaded by subs? Is there any strategic value to this target or is it just to make the invasion as costly as possible?

I believe that Kilo-class submarines have been used to launch missile strikes against Ukrainian targets, so destroying or disabling one does have strategic value. On top of that, it's a very expensive toy, and it's always useful to destroy expensive military toys.

[Max Peck]

The guy talking about Germans raising submarines...I clicked into his profile. He boosted a Uri Gellar post talking about an alien race who altered our DNA and also posts about 'remote viewing' ('The Men Who Stare at Goats' type stuff). So...

He's paying for a Xitter verified account. The blue checkmark is all the assurance I need to know that I don't need to pay attention to his pro-Russian jabbering.

[GreenGoo]

That's the problem - so much "discourse" is just polluted with entirely too online nutjobs bombarding us with junk data.

Sure, but I was already ignorant. Those comments did nothing to make me more or less ignorant, since I try to take everything with a grain of salt, especially in areas that I have never been before, both subject or locale.

Obviously I was skeptical, given my original post.

[Max Peck]

The Ukraine war is revolutionizing military technology. Whoever masters it wins.

The war in Ukraine — Europe’s biggest conflict since 1945 — features a bewildering combination of old and new technologies and tactics. The artillery duels, minefields and trench warfare are straight out of World War I, and yet much of the Ukrainian artillery fire is now being spotted by drones and adjusted on tablet computers linked via satellite to the internet. It sometimes feels like a mash-up of “All Quiet on the Western Front” and “Blade Runner.”

Militaries around the world are closely following the fighting to gain insights into 21st-century warfare, knowing that they are watching a trial run of technologies that will become more ubiquitous and important in future conflicts. “We are studying deeply not just Ukraine but also the Indo-Pacific and what’s happening with technology like artificial intelligence and machine learning,” Gen. James E. Rainey, commander of the Army Futures Command, told me. “The key is figuring out what won’t change, what is changing fundamentally and how to apply those insights.”

[Unagi]

I started this conversation before it was cool.

[waitingtoconnect]

It does leave me wondering if, aside from the nukes, the USSR was always a paper tiger. Did the new Russia slip that much? Or was the 'conventional' element of the cold war always just bluffing and proxies?

Leaving aside the challenges of a poorly run economically backward multiethnic empire held together by force going up against the worlds major economic powers…

It wasn’t bluffing for about 20-30 years. But the microchip Revolution changed warfare.

By the 1980s most western computer chips could no longer be duplicated even if the Soviets managed to get examples of them.

So by the end of the Cold War in 1990 western computers were streets ahead of anything the Soviets had. That translates to much more accurate missiles and tank sights.

A t72 for example can only hit a target about 50% of the time while a western tank can hit 90-95% of the time. Such a difference in accuracy offset the numbers advantage the Soviets had. In the gulf war the Iraqi tanks were shredded by the m1 Abrahams.

A real war was also unlikely because had west Germany been overrun the French would likely have used nukes and then…. Had an attack been repulsed by the west the Russians would have.

[malchior]

Beyond the tech the reunification of Germany closed off the "surprise attack" Fulda Gap scenario which had been a huge driver of the huge armor presence the USSR had developed. The Soviet Union didn't really last too much longer anyway but the strategic situation in Europe stabilized quite quickly and Fukuyama's "End of History" scenario began.

[Max Peck]

The thing that struck me about this thread is how common it seems to be for the turret to fly off when a vehicle is destroyed. There's an example in every photograph they included. Flying turrets was just never a thing I was aware of before this war.

https://nitter.net/Osinttechnical/statu ... 43445797#m

It appears that Ukrainian forces were able to stop a pair of Russian armored pushes towards Novoiehorivka, Luhansk Oblast in the last few weeks, inflicting heavy casualties.

Seen here, a destroyed T-90M, three T-72B3s, a BMP-3, and a pair of BMP-2s join the earlier seen losses.

[malchior]

Ammo is stored in the hull in nearly every tank in the world. If it blows, the turret usually is the thing that fails first in the blast barring blow out panels and the like.

[Isgrimnur]

[Max Peck]

Ammo is stored in the hull in nearly every tank in the world. If it blows, the turret usually is the thing that fails first in the blast barring blow out panels and the like.

I understand why it happens, particularly with the Russian-made tanks. It just struck me as odd that we see it a lot in this war, but I don't recall it being particularly notable in previous conflicts, such as the various wars in the Middle East. I suspect that it may be that in this case, one of the belligerents (Ukraine) is making a point of waging war in the social media space, so they're putting out a lot of imagery and video of destroyed Russian equipment, whereas traditionally governments try to maintain very tight control of what information is released to the public.

Maybe if we'd had Twitter and smartphones during Desert Storm, seeing it happen would seem like the same-old same-old now.

[malchior]

Ah got it. I saw a tanker commander talking about it. He said all the kerfuffle was definitely from the exposure. This is apparently common knowledge in the tanker community and has been happening since WW2.

[Blackhawk]

Tank turrets (depending on the tank) generally use either a couple of rings screwed together (ie - not built to stand up to force), or use the battleship gun mounting technique (if you're ever upside down, it no longer matters, so you just attach them with gravity.) In either case, the turret is often the route of least resistance to all of those expanding gasses.

[LawBeefaroni]

You know it's a long thread when....

Always impressive, but I can never completely forget that there are Russian teenagers or young adults being cooked alive for a few seconds before the explosion.

If it's any consolation, its probably closer to a few milliseconds before their internals are liquefied by the concussive blast. And yes, it's difficult to celebrate such a thing.

It depends on how the ammo goes up, but yeah. If they're lucky, it blows quick. I've also seen tanks where the 'cook off' stage before the explosion was considerably longer - you can sit and watch flames shooting out of the vents (admittedly I'm much more familiar with historical tanks than with current Russian stock.)

The T-72s have a design flaw/feature where the turret sits atop an autoloader full of live ammo. The gun crew sits between the ammo and the turret. Any hit that detonates the ammo will pretty much cause an immediate chain reaction, liquefying the gun crew against the turret and then blowing it off.

NATO tanks like the Abrams store the ammo away from the crew with some additional armor plating. This may lead to the cook off stage you're talking about. The trade off is the gun crew has to manually grab the shells and load them. I'm sure they're good with that now, if they weren't before.

Russia preferred the speed and lower training requirements of the autoloader to crew survivability.

Found a decent graphic:

(bam)

[Isgrimnur]

[malchior]

Longish discussion about the issues of autoloaders and ammo storage in tanks. They also discuss something I didn't know which is that there is space in a Leopard 2 for another 20-ish rounds. That's not in the WaPo graphic above. The extra rounds are stored in the hull and hitting any of them means the tank/crew are likely lost. The UFA only goes into battle in the Leopard 2 with the cassette and not any spare rounds for risk management reasons.

[malchior]

McCarthy to meet privately with Zelensky as Republican rebel against House forum with Zelensky. The United States is an unreliable partner at best but it's still his best shot at continued support if we don't self-destruct over the next two years.

The situation stands in contrast to the reception Mr. Zelensky is receiving in the Senate, where Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader, has organized a closed-door session in the Capitol for all 100 senators. House lawmakers who are interested in hearing directly from Mr. Zelensky will instead have to leave Capitol Hill; members of the Congressional Ukraine Caucus and others are expected to meet with him at the National Archives on Thursday.

Also this comment below? Fuck McCarthy. What an absolute scumbag but he wants power and that only comes with being a walking mat for extremists.

“Is Zelensky elected to Congress? Is he our president? I don’t think I have to commit anything,” Mr. McCarthy told reporters on Tuesday. “Where is the accountability on the money we already spent? What is the plan for victory? I think that’s what the American public wants to know.”

Mr. McCarthy’s hostility to approving additional funds for Ukraine has been mounting in recent months, as his increasingly emboldened right flank revolts over a deal he struck with Mr. Biden this spring setting spending limits in exchange for suspending the debt limit. Despite having previously stated that he supported Ukraine’s fight against Russia, Mr. McCarthy declared himself in June to be opposed to budgeting additional dollars for it, and this week he endorsed a spending measure drafted by conservative and moderate Republicans that would allot no additional funding for assisting Kyiv.

The stance has put Mr. McCarthy out of step with other Republican leaders, like Senator Mitch McConnell, the minority leader, as well as the bulk of his own members in the House. They have argued that helping Ukrainian troops by budgeting for a steady flow of weapons is a moral imperative, and that Mr. Zelensky could help persuade their more skeptical colleagues of that necessity, if only the speaker would give him the chance.

[LordMortis]

“Where is the accountability on the money we already spent? What is the plan for victory? I think that’s what the American public wants to know.”

Wait, it's only worth supporting someone against hostile invasion by a foreign power if you can show their plan for victory publicly and can account for... what? You demonstrably a cowardly POS again and again and again.

I'd personally rather not support wars around the world and would love to see the US pull back on geopolitics and policing activity but of all the wars we've been involved in my lifetime, this one is the single most justified and important.

[Jaymon]

Well, Ukraine doesn't have any oil. See? They do have natural gas, but USA doesn't wage wars over natural gas, thats just not how things are done.

[Alefroth]

Well, Ukraine doesn't have any oil. See? They do have natural gas, but USA doesn't wage wars over natural gas, thats just not how things are done.

No, but they do have grain-

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/20 ... ine-grain/

Rather than sending weapons to Ukraine, Warsaw will focus on arming itself, Morawiecki said in a Wednesday evening interview with Polsat News. “We will protect our country,” he told the channel. “We are no longer transferring any weapons, because we will now arm ourselves with the most modern weapons.”