Русский корабль - иди нахуй

[Bateshorn 9853]

One of the very clever things this Administration is doing is remaking the Ukrainian military into our military’s image. Just Like the Poles.  This makes it very hard for certain elements (no CR) to walk away from Ukraine because there are jobs in their congressional districts that are now dependent on our continued support for Ukraine. And that means getting the Ukrainians on board with our SOP. And that likely doesn’t involve use of old, warehoused cluster munitions that probably are only still in existence because the Pentagon doesn’t have the cash to do safe and proper disposal (I.e. not burnpits).

[BamaATL 16592]

A long read, but well a done story

 

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/02/24/russia-ukraine-war-oral-history-00083757

[atomheartbevo 89304]

53 minutes ago, Scheiss Meister said:

They'll blow up, too.  And more easily.

Reading up on those things, holy shit, they came out of a program in the late 1940s, went into production in 1954 or 1955.  While that's only 5-10  years earlier than our M113s, we continued to upgrade and improve them quite a bit and knew their limitations.  Looks like the Russians took the last ones out of service 20 years ago, but they started going into storage in the 1970s.  Even if they are pulling the ones out that went into storage 20 years ago, 20 years of Russian "storage" is a lot different than American storage of such systems.

Lots of info (this appears to be a cool site) BTR-50 - Tank Encyclopedia (tanks-encyclopedia.com)

Edit: Looks like almost all were pulled from service in the 70s, replaced by the BMP-1, and the ones still in service in 2003 were a handful of speciality models that would not be anywhere near the front lines.

 

Edited February 24, 2023 by atomheartbevo

[Parliament 14086]

Zeihan is not real confident.  Says Russia will have a 6-700k army by May.  "There is nothing about the conflict that is atypical in Russian history.  They rarely win on quality, they almost always win on numbers."

 

[atomheartbevo 89304]

2 minutes ago, Parliament said:

Zeihan is not real confident.  Says Russia will have a 6-700k army by May.  "There is nothing about the conflict that is atypical in Russian history.  They rarely win on quality, they almost always win on numbers."

I like a lot of what he says, but he's also been Mr. Doom and Gloom, and he's ignoring the fact that Russia is having supply problems, from providing ammo to troops to providing trucks, APCs, tanks, etc.  (or being too optimistic that they can fix them). What Russia could get away with in terms of human waves in 1944 won't fly in 2023 with modern drones putting infantry under constant surveillance, HIMARS and other precision artillery fires a constant threat to large groups of infantry, while Ukraine is constantly expanding the power/lethality of its forces as new systems come into the field.

Plus, Ukraine has a large army already, and it's increasing as more and more Ukrainians train under NATO troops.

[BamaATL 16592]

5 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Reading up on those things, holy shit, they came out of a program in the late 1940s, went into production in 1954 or 1955.  While that's only 5-10  years earlier than our M113s, we continued to upgrade and improve them quite a bit and knew their limitations.  Looks like the Russians took the last ones out of service 20 years ago, but they started going into storage in the 1970s.  Even if they are pulling the ones out that went into storage 20 years ago, 20 years of Russian "storage" is a lot different than American storage of such systems.

Lots of info (this appears to be a cool site) BTR-50 - Tank Encyclopedia (tanks-encyclopedia.com)

Edit: Looks like almost all were pulled from service in the 70s, replaced by the BMP-1, and the ones still in service in 2003 were a handful of speciality models that would not be anywhere near the front lines.

 

The funny thing is, their principle tank engine designs are still based on models we sent them in the early 1940s, initially lead by one Walter Chrysler, who has in fact been dead for over 80 years now.  Obviously, they have made some improvements, but bottom line, that's true.  Because of budgetary limitations, the Soviets, and in turn the Russian Federation doesn't innovate, what they really do is attempt to improve proven tech.  They do the same thing in rocketry, hence whey they are still using the Vostok.  To put that in perspective, that would be like us continuing to use the Mercury program rockets to this very day.  Its a different mindset, and in peace there is an argument to be made that this is at least somewhat effective.  

War on the hand is entirely about innovation.  Good news, they suck out loud at it.  The only thing they are good at is artillery en mass, and its destruction is the key to all this.  If their artillery is largely destroyed, the ground troops will be like lambs to the slaughter.  

[Bateshorn 9853]

3 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

I like a lot of what he says, but he's also been Mr. Doom and Gloom, and he's ignoring the fact that Russia is having supply problems, from providing ammo to troops to providing trucks, APCs, tanks, etc.  (or being too optimistic that they can fix them). What Russia could get away with in terms of human waves in 1944 won't fly in 2023 with modern drones putting infantry under constant surveillance, HIMARS and other precision artillery fires a constant threat to large groups of infantry, while Ukraine is constantly expanding the power/lethality of its forces as new systems come into the field.

Plus, Ukraine has a large army already, and it's increasing as more and more Ukrainians train under NATO troops.

The “quantity has a quality all its own” worked for Russia, exactly once: WW2. And that’s partially (mostly) because we were supplying them with the materials they needed beyond humans to make it work.  Plus we destroyed the Nazis oil sources in Romania. Had the German’s not elected to try and fight and win a 2 front war after D-Day and invest his reserves in the Bulge, started quiet negotiations with the West, and instead focused on the Eastern Front, I’m not sure the Russians get across the Oder before we capture most of Germany and Berlin. 
 

Basically it was a one off that needed everything to come together to be successful. 
 

[Gatorubet 30023]

5 hours ago, SL Xpress said:

Sure. If you're on the winning side. 

On the other hand you can be the Mongols who eradicate a substantial portion of the human race. 

There is archaeological evidence of Romans completely annihilating towns in the Iberian peninsula. Men, women, children. Then salting the earth so that no one could settle there afterwards. 

The Maoris would wipe populations off islands they discovered, returning with the women and girls as breeders.

The Vikings faced few real repercussions for their rapacious and vicious attacks on Europe. Several descendants, including the Normans and the Kievan Rus, would go on to successfully make their own conquests. 

Indigenous tribes were wiped off the face of the map in several places in North America, including Haiti/Dominican Republic, the island Columbus discovered. 

The civilizations who prosecuted the Atlantic slave trade haven't exactly been punished for what I would consider a crime against humanity. 

Human history is replete with civilizations completely wiped out by another. Purposefully. I'm certain in prehistory it was common as well, but with smaller populations involved.

It's all well and good to have a righteous cause. To me what's even more important is to possess the stronger military force with a society willing and able to wield it. Otherwise you might find your civilization no longer exists, no matter how just it is. 

In any case, no one is marching across the Russian border, so something else will have to happen. Whether it does or not. The Comanches did not possess nuclear weapons, otherwise that fight might have gone a bit differently.  

Maoris got solved.  Even Alfred started the solution to the Viking problem that ended for England at Stamford bridge.   Cancerous cultures had to go.    Mongols had some juice and took a while.   I never said there was not violence throughout the course of human history. But when more civilized societies were at risk of being prayed upon by the less civilized and more violent societies, those violent societies we’re not allowed to continue living next to the more civilized.

You could not logic the Maoris and the Vikings and the Mongols out of violence.   No one was able to convince them to stop murdering and killing and raping and attacking by appealing to their better natures.   You either I had to wipe them out. Or wait until their culture changed. 

[Gatorubet 30023]

40 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Reading up on those things, holy shit, they came out of a program in the late 1940s, went into production in 1954 or 1955.  While that's only 5-10  years earlier than our M113s, we continued to upgrade and improve them quite a bit and knew their limitations.  Looks like the Russians took the last ones out of service 20 years ago, but they started going into storage in the 1970s.  Even if they are pulling the ones out that went into storage 20 years ago, 20 years of Russian "storage" is a lot different than American storage of such systems.

Lots of info (this appears to be a cool site) BTR-50 - Tank Encyclopedia (tanks-encyclopedia.com)

Edit: Looks like almost all were pulled from service in the 70s, replaced by the BMP-1, and the ones still in service in 2003 were a handful of speciality models that would not be anywhere near the front lines.

 

50 cal will go through like butter. 

[Bateshorn 9853]

4 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

50 cal will go through like butter. 

When they talk about bullet magnets in Black Hawk Down, that is the Russian version. 

[tokamak 6346]

Everyone is talking about fighters, but what about A-10s for Ukraine?

[Bateshorn 9853]

1 minute ago, tokamak said:

Everyone is talking about fighters, but what about A-10s for Ukraine?

Surly stahp. 

[tokamak 6346]

Is that a dumb question?

[Trey3216 15321]

1 minute ago, tokamak said:

Is that a dumb question?

It's been discussed addddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd naauuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuseum 

[MissingInAction 24746]

3 minutes ago, tokamak said:

Is that a dumb question?

It's about as practical as sending them sharks with lasers on their heads.

[tokamak 6346]

Guess I missed it

[Gatorubet 30023]

50 minutes ago, Parliament said:

Zeihan is not real confident.  Says Russia will have a 6-700k army by May.  "There is nothing about the conflict that is atypical in Russian history.  They rarely win on quality, they almost always win on numbers."

if Zeihan is right about numbers -  and Girkin is right that colonels  are now leading platoons - the any future offensive will be like this:

 

[Brisketexan 104226]

It's about as practical as sending them sharks with lasers on their heads.

But we should also send those. And suicide bomber dolphins. And some angry sea bass.

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

11 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

Did you just quote yourself in the post your quoting?

Suspicious 

[Pescado_Rojo 19320]

Just now, tokamak said:

Guess I missed it

Short version, the A10 needs almost total air superiority to operate effectively, and Ukraine is nowhere close to having air superiority. Other platforms can handle the close support mission with precision munitions better than setting up a long supply tail for A10s. Drone guided artillery, F-16s with JDAMS guided by drones with laser designators, Excalibur artillery rounds,  etc. 

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

I think the likelihood of a UKR victory is small (I’m defining that as Russian forces pull out from all pre-2104 territories).

They just need to keep throwing bodies at this until the West fatigues, which will happen.

Putin has been wrong on basically everything, but I think he is right on one simple calculus: Russia can eat a lot more shit sandwiches than the West.

[texasdago 7544]

I've read Empire of the Summer Moon... I don't know that our treatment of the Comanches and other indian tribes (aka all indian tribes) provides the righteous "right side of history" example you think.

[atomheartbevo 89304]

18 minutes ago, tokamak said:

Is that a dumb question?

@Pescado_Rojo answered it, but I'd toss in that ATACMS or other long-range munitions (including JDAMS) would go a long way towards fulfilling those kinds of roles that the A-10 could be used for - the Russians can no longer rush mass formations of armored vehicles, and whatever they are capable of putting together can be handled with artillery (rocket or barrel).  And if we provide them the long-range stuff, they can cut Russian supply lines.

6 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

Putin has been wrong on basically everything, but I think he is right on one simple calculus: Russia can eat a lot more shit sandwiches than the West.

Ukraine has already shown how it can cut supply lines and take advantage of the resulting chaos, and Russia has some very dicey supply lines for Crimea.  Russia is running out of missiles and armored vehicles (I'm still trying to wrap my head around them pulling vehicles out of storage that were technically retired in the 1970s) and they are struggling to keep their men equipped and transporting them around.  Which, yes, is a huge shit sandwich, but if they can't effectively get that shit sandwich into the fight against the Ukrainians, it doesn't matter how much of said shit sandwich they can eat.

[Armybrat 40648]

8 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

I recently re-read Empire of the Summer Moon.   Reading about Comanches got me thinking about Russia.  

In the culture and history battle about who is at fault for the native American outcome, some blame the treaty, breaking and encroaching whites - and some blame the savage primitive cultural habits of the Native Americans. The truth is, no matter the fact that some elements of a culture may have merit, when the core values of a culture and society say it’s fine to make war on any innocent, it’s fine to torture them, it’s fine to kill them at your whim for whatever gain you see from it, and it’s fine to rape their women and steal their children, then that culture needs to be ended. 

Russia is like Comanchuria.  It rose to power by raiding the weaker regions surrounding their preferred homeland, and by killing anyone who lived in an area they considered theirs.   This takes no actual of actual historic boundaries, other than insisting that any area announced as theirs, they would attack anyone to prove dominance. 

You cannot treat with Russians any better then you could treat with Comanches at the council house fight. They promised to bring in the children that were kidnapped, but they lied. Like Russia, they needed kidnapped children to support their society.  So how do you deal with a savage and dangerous country living on your borders that will not respect your own right to live?

The sad answer has to be, you have to kill enough of the warriors so that the militaristic dangerous part of their culture is slapped down to the point that the remaining peopke can live with the rest of the surrounding world.

We need to finish doing to Russia what we did to the Comanche. 

Send the survivors to Oklahoma?

[The Dog 43716]

 

[The Dog 43716]

 

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

12 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

@Pescado_Rojo answered it, but I'd toss in that ATACMS or other long-range munitions (including JDAMS) would go a long way towards fulfilling those kinds of roles that the A-10 could be used for - the Russians can no longer rush mass formations of armored vehicles, and whatever they are capable of putting together can be handled with artillery (rocket or barrel).  And if we provide them the long-range stuff, they can cut Russian supply lines.

Ukraine has already shown how it can cut supply lines and take advantage of the resulting chaos, and Russia has some very dicey supply lines for Crimea.  Russia is running out of missiles and armored vehicles (I'm still trying to wrap my head around them pulling vehicles out of storage that were technically retired in the 1970s) and they are struggling to keep their men equipped and transporting them around.  Which, yes, is a huge shit sandwich, but if they can't effectively get that shit sandwich into the fight against the Ukrainians, it doesn't matter how much of said shit sandwich they can eat.

I think you’re hopelessly stuck in a biased informational feedback loop.

[MissingInAction 24746]

I know I wasn't the only Texas boy that used to fantasize about traveling in time back to the Alamo with a M-60 or other modern weapon.

This has become a reality where Ukraine is the Alamo armed with the M-60 and the Russians are the waves of Mexican soldiers armed with muskets.

Shit I would not be surprised to see vids of Russian corpses next to black powder weapons.

[atomheartbevo 89304]

15 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

Send the survivors to Oklahoma?

Not allowed under the Geneva Convention.

[Saint Austin 739]

7 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Not allowed under the Geneva Convention.

I NEVER HEARD OF IT!

Edited February 24, 2023 by Saint Austin

[The Dog 43716]

[atomheartbevo 89304]

10 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

I think you’re hopelessly stuck in a biased informational feedback loop.

And I think you are hopelessly stuck in 1944 if you think it’s as simple as more men = victory.

Over the last 6-8 months we’ve been hearing from some, including Zeihan, that Russia just needs to get more men in uniform, that they will turn the corner eventually, that they will figure it out, in just two more weeks, months, years.

At this point, I’m expecting Jimbo Fisher to show up in a Russian general’s uniform.

 

[27-25 2040]

A whole year.  Never would have guessed.

 

[Gatorubet 30023]

3 minutes ago, texasdago said:

I've read Empire of the Summer Moon... I don't know that our treatment of the Comanches and other indian tribes (aka all indian tribes) provides the righteous "right side of history" example you think.

I wasn’t talking about all Indian tribes. Everyone knows how poorly we treated Native Americans, and how many treaties we broke.

I was talking about Comanches.  They were the embodiment of all the violent negative stereotypes that did not necessarily apply to other Native American societies.  Raping, torturing stealing and murdering was their jam….not a false narrative to steal their land. 

[Chad Fuck 17455]

33 minutes ago, MissingInAction said:

I know I wasn't the only Texas boy that used to fantasize about traveling in time back to the Alamo with a M-60 or other modern weapon.

This has become a reality where Ukraine is the Alamo armed with the M-60 and the Russians are the waves of Mexican soldiers armed with muskets.

Shit I would not be surprised to see vids of Russian corpses next to black powder weapons.

Did you read this book in 7th grade like I did?  Because it is exactly the same premise.  Look down front.  There's you M-60 man.

[NeverMarryAStripper 21780]

[Ghost of LL 15327]

12 hours ago, Slacks said:

Not gonna lie... Sometimes when I read this thread, I think people want ww3.

I don't know anybody in Ukraine or Russia. I want peace. The borders aren't real. We don't keep any of it. We do lose lives.

And freedom

It's rare post-1940 to see someone so nakedly support appeasement.  

There's a reason for that.

 

2 hours ago, Parliament said:

Zeihan is not real confident.  Says Russia will have a 6-700k army by May.  "There is nothing about the conflict that is atypical in Russian history.  They rarely win on quality, they almost always win on numbers."

 

That's just dead wrong.  They don't almost always win.  It's the opposite.  

The won in 1945 because we were supplying them.  But without that logistical support, they lost in 1917 (owing to a failure of logistics); they lost in 1905 (owing to a failure of logistics); they lost in 1856 (owing to a failure of logistics).

[Chad Fuck 17455]

1 minute ago, Ghost of LL said:

It's rare post-1940 to see someone so nakedly support appeasement.  

There's a reason for that.

 

That's just dead wrong.  They don't almost always win.  It's the opposite.  

The won in 1945 because we were supplying them.  But without that logistical support, they lost in 1917 (owing to a failure of logistics); they lost in 1905 (owing to a failure of logistics); they lost in 1856 (owing to a failure of logistics).

They lost in Afghanistan too.  Graveyard of nations and all that.

 

[Longhorn94 2425]

Ukraine will win for one very simple reason: no matter how many bodies Russia throws at it, the West CANNOT allow Russia to win. The more bodies Russia throws at it, the more serious and committed everyone in the West will become to make sure Russia does not win. Lines that are currently drawn with respect to weapons and systems will no longer matter and will be provided. Russia sucks at war, their soldiers suck, their equipment and systems suck. Its just a matter of time at this point. 

[The Dog 43716]

Some like Zeihan and others are still giving Russia more credit than they deserve and are are still anchored to pre-invasion expectations of the Russian military.

They don't understand that Russia isn't holding anything back and that we are seeing the "spring offensive".

On the flip side, we know that Ukraine is holding back significant firepower as they integrate their new NATO kit into new divisions that will attack sometime in the spring. 

I don't know why some of them don't recognize that. 

[Pato del Muerto 52234]

1 hour ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

I think the likelihood of a UKR victory is small (I’m defining that as Russian forces pull out from all pre-2104 territories).

They just need to keep throwing bodies at this until the West fatigues, which will happen.

Putin has been wrong on basically everything, but I think he is right on one simple calculus: Russia can eat a lot more shit sandwiches than the West.

That’s true. So what we are trying to do is prepare a shit sandwich so large they choke on it while trying to eat it. 

[MissingInAction 24746]

20 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

Did you read this book in 7th grade like I did?  Because it is exactly the same premise.  Look down front.  There's you M-60 man.

How did I miss this one?

Off to Amazon I go. 

Thanks!

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

37 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

And I think you are hopelessly stuck in 1944 if you think it’s as simple as more men = victory.

Over the last 6-8 months we’ve been hearing from some, including Zeihan, that Russia just needs to get more men in uniform, that they will turn the corner eventually, that they will figure it out, in just two more weeks, months, years.

You spent quite a few months convinced Putin didn't have the political capital to enact a mobilization. Looking back, how silly was that?

I've gone back and forth on whether or not I think UKR will win or not. I get the sense the West realizes time is not on our side and are pushing for a win soon-ish. I hope it happens, but I worry if it doesn't slowly politicians in the West will be forced to reduce their support for the war.

[Pato del Muerto 52234]

2 minutes ago, MissingInAction said:

How did I miss this one?

Off to Amazon I go. 

Thanks!

Let me know how much ammo they brought with them

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

3 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

That’s true. So what we are trying to do is prepare a shit sandwich so large they choke on it while trying to eat it. 

Yep. I agree with that. It feels like victory is time-sensitive for the West. If the goal for it to happen was this spring/summer, waiting this late for the surge in hardware support was a huge mistake.

We'll see.

[Trey3216 15321]

2 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

You spent quite a few months convinced Putin didn't have the political capital to enact a mobilization. Looking back, how silly was that?

I've gone back and forth on whether or not I think UKR will win or not. I get the sense the West realizes time is not on our side and are pushing for a win soon-ish. I hope it happens, but I worry if it doesn't slowly politicians in the West will be forced to reduce their support for the war.

Don't really need political capital as an authoritarian whose internal enemies have all been eradicated.  

[Pato del Muerto 52234]

1 minute ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

Yep. I agree with that. It feels like victory is time-sensitive for the West. If the goal for it to happen was this spring/summer, waiting this late for the surge in hardware support was a huge mistake.

We'll see.

Hopefully the training is already ongoing, so that the announcement of new system arrival coincides with new system working in theater. 
 

you don’t cry havoc and begin to train the dogs of war. 

[Chad Fuck 17455]

5 minutes ago, MissingInAction said:

How did I miss this one?

Off to Amazon I go. 

Thanks!

I make no promises about the literary merit of 7th grade Chad's reading material.  Take that as you will. 

[sidis 9686]

3 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

I make no promises about the literary merit of 7th grade Chad's reading material.  Take that as you will. 

"america" is going to win, eh?  not an encouraging start.

[BamaATL 16592]

1 hour ago, tokamak said:

Everyone is talking about fighters, but what about A-10s for Ukraine?

Their air defense would wreck them.  That is something else they are ok at, close infantry air defense.  We are far better off using jdams to clear lines.