Jump to content

Русский корабль - иди нахуй


Eastwood

Recommended Posts

Rivers may have a general direction of flow, but they follow topography, twisting and even doubling back. If you need to identify one bank along its entire course (super important for armies), cardinal directions won’t work.  So, stand in the middle and look downstream. Right bank/left bank. 
That's how we in the whitewater kayaking community label things. River Left and Right. Getting it confused, can leave you dead or mangled, even on Barton Creek if it's raging.

I had no idea the the Dnipro was being discussed this way. I assumed the orcs were Abandoning the river right bank (going downstream) or the more western bank, for the eastern or river left bank. Which I thought they had largely achieved.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ShaggyBevo RIP said:

Been super busy the last two days.

Reading between the lines Is RU actually having D-Day level losses while trying to retreat over the Dnipro?

Remember, Ukraine has a pretty good grip on stuff coming out - as the below points out, when we saw actual footage out of Balakliya, Ukraine had moved dozens of KM beyond that.

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I have to admit my interest is piqued if these rumors about the extent of Russian losses are true. Because that makes a huge difference in personal joy in recovering Kherson. It is a bit hard to fathom that a few months ago news about winning back Kherson would be ho-hum for me. If there was news like that back in July there would have been celebrations like the Moskva sunk all over again. But we have reached the point that Ukraine has demonstrated the ability to counter-attack and recover large stretch of territory.

The Kherson situation has been fascinating because it has been the best opportunity to attrite Russian forces. Winning the city is a key politically and strategically but in my mind permanently damaging Russian military capabilities is more important for reaching those final goals - recovering all the pre-2014 borders. I have been concerned that Russia would be able to fully withdraw with minimal losses. So it has been a fine line in trying to recover the city with minimal losses (including civilians) but also keeping Russians pinned down to inflict max casualties.

My dream goal was to reclaim the city before EOY and see 10-20k in KIAs/WIAs/surrenders along with losses of heavy equipment. Hopefully stories are true and maybe we can get some numbers close to that.

 

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, ShaggyBevo RIP said:

Been super busy the last two days.

Reading between the lines Is RU actually having D-Day level losses while trying to retreat over the Dnipro?

We don't know, we should temper our expectations. We've been seeing reports and videos of them fleeing for days, so in theory, the last thing we'd expect to see was a reverse Dunkirk.

If there was though, then that's like a complete royal fuck up. Like epic proportions. They had days/weeks to evacuate, and we saw them evacuating stuff, so it turns out that they just looted the shit out of everything and left their troops to die, then I mean just WOW. We'll see though.

  • Hook 'Em 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rivers may have a general direction of flow, but they follow topography, twisting and even doubling back. If you need to identify one bank along its entire course (super important for armies), cardinal directions won’t work.  So, stand in the middle and look downstream. Right bank/left bank. 

Oh? What if the river is too deep to stand in the middle? What then, smart guy?

Whatever. Fuck AI. They stanned for Putin first, they can’t recover their credibility.
  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I have to admit my interest is piqued if these rumors about the extent of Russian losses are true. Because that makes a huge difference in personal joy in recovering Kherson. It is a bit hard to fathom that a few months ago news about winning back Kherson would be ho-hum for me. If there was news like that back in July there would have been celebrations like the Moskva sunk all over again. But we have reached the point that Ukraine has demonstrated the ability to counter-attack and recover large stretch of territory.
The Kherson situation has been fascinating because it has been the best opportunity to attrite Russian forces. Winning the city is a key politically and strategically but in my mind permanently damaging Russian military capabilities is more important for reaching those final goals - recovering all the pre-2014 borders. I have been concerned that Russia would be able to fully withdraw with minimal losses. So it has been a fine line in trying to recover the city with minimal losses (including civilians) but also keeping Russians pinned down to inflict max casualties.
My dream goal was to reclaim the city before EOY and see 10-20k in KIAs/WIAs/surrenders along with losses of heavy equipment. Hopefully stories are true and maybe we can get some numbers close to that.
 

And this. Recapturing Kherson is nice, but it was going to happen soon enough. Slaughtering the Russian army, taking it out of the fight for the future? That’s the win they need here. I hope the rumors are true. Stacks of thousands of Russian dead might actually make an impression back in Russia, too.
  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


And this. Recapturing Kherson is nice, but it was going to happen soon enough. Slaughtering the Russian army, taking it out of the fight for the future? That’s the win they need here. I hope the rumors are true. Stacks of thousands of Russian dead might actually make an impression back in Russia, too.

Grant made it very clear early on that his goal was to destroy the Army of Northern Virginia.  Once that was accomplished, he could march his troops into any city he wanted.  This is what Ukraine has been doing in Kherson.  Starve and grind down the Russian Army until they have no choice but retreat, then kick them in the ass and kill more on the way out.  Kherson is the prize, but the Russian Army is the target.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 3
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Scheiss Meister said:

Grant made it very clear early on that his goal was to destroy the Army of Northern Virginia.  Once that was accomplished, he could march his troops into any city he wanted.  This is what Ukraine has been doing in Kherson.  Starve and grind down the Russian Army until they have no choice but retreat, then kick them in the ass and kill more on the way out.  Kherson is the prize, but the Russian Army is the target.

Well, that’s just Clausewitz. A generation before Grant, Clausewitz postulated that the goal of military maneuver was to engage and destroy the enemy army, rather than capturing and holding territory.  And failure to do that permitted the conflict to continue indefinitely (see, e.g., the Hundred Years War).

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Parliament said:

And FWIW, a quick Google says shooting a man wearing an enemy uniform as he is running away is NOT a war crime.  So have at it, Boys.

In boot camp one of our DIs told us that you never run away in battle because it makes you an easier target.  You present a large silhouette, and you can't shoot back.  Light 'em up, Ukraine!

Oh, and shooting an enemy combatant out of uniform, in civilian clothes, is also not a war crime.

Edited by Scheiss Meister
  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Rivers may have a general direction of flow, but they follow topography, twisting and even doubling back. If you need to identify one bank along its entire course (super important for armies), cardinal directions won’t work.  So, stand in the middle and look downstream. Right bank/left bank. 

Yeah, I know dude, that was the joke - I’m from New Orleans, where the East Bank is on the west and the West Bank is on the east, and instead of cardinal directions we have uptown, downtown, lakeside and riverside. And the Dnipro was still confusing!

Edited by We’reTexas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that’s just Clausewitz. A generation before Grant, Clausewitz postulated that the goal of military maneuver was to engage and destroy the enemy army, rather than capturing and holding territory.  And failure to do that permitted the conflict to continue indefinitely (see, e.g., the Hundred Years War).

Thats actually homo erectus. Bash your enemies until they’re gone. Nothing genius about it.
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Scheiss Meister said:

In boot camp one of our DIs told us that you never run away in battle because it makes you an easier target.  You present a large silhouette, and you can't shoot back.  Light 'em up, Ukraine!

Oh, and shooting an enemy combatant out of uniform, in civilian clothes, is also not a war crime.

In Face Of Battle, Keegan talks about how something like a quarter or more of the French casualties were when they broke and ran at Waterloo.  I don’t remember the exact number but turning and running rather than surrendering is about the most dangerous thing you can do on an active battlefield. Humans remain violent primates at our core that see a fleeing back with incredible savagery. 

  • Hook 'Em 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Face Of Battle, Keegan talks about how something like a quarter or more of the French casualties were when they broke and ran at Waterloo.  I don’t remember the exact number but turning and running rather than surrendering is about the most dangerous thing you can do on an active battlefield. Humans remain violent primates at our core that see a fleeing back with incredible savagery. 

Too bad General Meade was too much of a pussywimp to chase down them rebs after Gettysburg and cut down the army of Virginia
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

In Face Of Battle, Keegan talks about how something like a quarter or more of the French casualties were when they broke and ran at Waterloo.  I don’t remember the exact number but turning and running rather than surrendering is about the most dangerous thing you can do on an active battlefield. Humans remain violent primates at our core that see a fleeing back with incredible savagery. 

Now do Austerlitz

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fleeing armies have taken tons of casualties in warfare throughout history. Mobile elements (cavalry, armor) tip scales in favor of the victor and then are in prime position to follow up and cut down people running away. There are a few times where feigning retreat or withdrawal has led to dramatic victory (Austerlitz), but those are the exceptions.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been working too much this week instead of spending all of my time reading Surly so I might have missed it-- were last week's fears that Russia was leaving Kherson as a trap, set to blow, unfounded?  They just left so quickly that we assumed it was a planned retreat and a dangerous trap, but in reality it was more like a rout?

Edited by utee94
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

Yall know that military historians are hard to come by these days relatively speaking. Finish up some PhDs and go get paid Surlyites. 

I’ve been out of the university world for about a decade but back then military history was in serious disfavor both among PhD candidates and among departments.  The few (good ones!) that we had around spent a lot of time doing interdisciplinary stuff with the security and international relations people who valued them more. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I’ve been out of the university world for about a decade but back then military history was in serious disfavor both among PhD candidates and among departments.  The few (good ones!) that we had around spent a lot of time doing interdisciplinary stuff with the security and international relations people who valued them more. 

Yup, been that way for a couple decades but every advisor I had kept on pushing anyone they could find in that direction so that you could get your $20k/year adjunct job since it's sorely missing compared to cultural and social historians. The top students at the top schools still generally poopoo on it.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

US saying diplomacy possible. If you were Ukraine would you take this to end the war?

Russia keeps Crimea and dumbas regions. Immediate withdrawal of all troops

Ukraine keeps everything else, immediately is granted Nato status, is is able to prosecute all war crimes and receives reparations from Russia. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I’ve been out of the university world for about a decade but back then military history was in serious disfavor both among PhD candidates and among departments.  The few (good ones!) that we had around spent a lot of time doing interdisciplinary stuff with the security and international relations people who valued them more. 

i took a european warfare class covering ~1500 through the end of the napoleonic wars at UT.  distinctly remember the prof saying that there weren't many professional historians writing about war and most of it was done by buffs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...