Don't think lasers can do the job. Lasers work by trying to set fire to the fuel of aircraft or missiles.
Artillery rounds don't have fuel to detonate.
Not to mention the mass of C-RAM rounds can knock the incoming off course. Light don't have the mass needed to knock things off course. (Unless you got a great big honking photonic drive)
A laser based anti-missile system for land is totally the wrong tech path to pursue.
Lasers will be able to burn trough to the HE warhead but i have my doubts in ither laser or C-RAM handling a salvo from a single MLRS launcher let alone multiple MLRS
Shell fuses and cases are just as vulnerable as missile, there is a saturation problem.
'Experience' gained in Iraq and Afghanistan is likely to prove useless if not outright dangerous. Any infantry squad attempting to go to ground and return fire is rather likely to do quite well for the 30 seconds it takes a gun to be brought to bear on their position.
I don't believe mass fire is likely to be a big problem. Guns are cheap and plentiful but a logistical nightmare to keep fed and mobile. A savvy enemy (think Yugoslavia) is likely to deploy single guns everywhere under local control.
This makes sense ,combine that with an UAV and you have cheap and mobile precision strike or with unguided rockets a MLRS. I rationale is ither buying a strike ariplane or helicopter or number of MLRS with some guided ammo i take MLRS any day of the week.
Ok boys... we can and wa ARE shooting down single mortar or artillery strike, couple of rounds can be engage on relatively safety and destroyed. Germans test own interceptor system as I like to call it, the Mantis in Afgan in Iraq (don't remember) and they work pretty fine. http://www.army-technology.com/projects/mantis/images/3-mantis.jpg
But we can engage limited number of rounds in limited time, full artillery strike or mortar strike from AMOS will break through it. I don't even mention a Rocket salvo, that will be impossible to intercepted by share number of rockets and not very precise trajectory. Forget boys, no lasers or guns can do this.
We can counter this only in two ways or three.
1. The most classic one, counterbattery fire... yeah you will be hit, but you can try to eliminate launcher from another action. 2. Destroy launcher before it can shoot. 3. Let's go in to SF... a fraking force field.
Raw Forces used in wars is pointless : What took one entire MLRS barrage from seppos could have taken 2 GBU 12 to OTAN. The only constant in war comparison are casualties. Do you play the idiot or what ? And, okey for some 40 types of "wars" ? Please educate me by enumerating them ! I can't wait !
Its not Gorbachev who is driving this ,even tough it might have been a verbal deal its on record as meetings are ither taped or transcribed. We all know that even when in writing it only depends on power ,it just shows why Russia has every reason to not trust the West. And do you serously think everyithing spoken or agreed is signed on paper even when brookeing peace deals etc do you think it happend without new promisses and asurances.
''On Feb. 10, 1990, between 4 and 6:30 p.m., Genscher spoke with Shevardnadze. According to the German record of the conversation, which was only recently declassified, Genscher said: "We are aware that NATO membership for a unified Germany raises complicated questions. For us, however, one thing is certain: NATO will not expand to the east." And because the conversion revolved mainly around East Germany, Genscher added explicitly: "As far as the non-expansion of NATO is concerned, this also applies in general." Shevardnadze replied that he believed "everything the minister (Genscher) said."
''As Genscher's chief of staff Frank Elbe later wrote, the German foreign minister had "moved with the caution of a giant insect that uses its many feelers to investigate its surroundings, prepared to recoil when it encounters resistance."
US Secretary of State James Baker, a pragmatic Texan, apparently "warmed to the proposal immediately," says Elbe today. On Feb. 2, the two diplomats sat down in front of the fireplace in Baker's study in Washington, took off their jackets, put their feet up and discussed world events. They quickly agreed that there was to be no NATO expansion to the East. "It was completely clear," Elbe comments.
''What the US secretary of state Baker said on Feb. 9, 1990 in the magnificent St. Catherine's Hall at the Kremlin is beyond dispute. There would be, in Baker's words, "no extension of NATO's jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east," provided the Soviets agreed to the NATO membership of a unified Germany. Moscow would think about it, Gorbachev said, but added: "any extension of the zone of NATO is unacceptable."
I must say that I don't understand your argument... first you write that "we don't compare wars by TNT" and then you compare the TNT of MLRS and GBU... you get me lost.
The basic knowledge that teach in every military... I don't write the description for them, I still have some faith in you. I eliminate some philosophical or theory wars.
1. World War 2. Lighting War or if you want Blitzkrieg 3. Position War 4. Proxy War 5. Biological War 6. Total War 7. Cold War 8. Preventive War 9. Local War 10. Jihad 11. Nuclear War 12. Maneuvering War
13. Radio electronic War 14. Psychological War 15. Succession War 16. Hegemonic War 17. Civil War 18. Cyber War 19. Asymmetric War 20. Tariff War 21. Defense War 22. Colonial War 23. Air War 24. Sea War 25. Space War 26. Outspace War 27. Information War 28. Energy War 29. Hybrid War 30. Legal War 31. Conventional War
The sequence of the rebellion was: US-instigated coup, fascist-driven moves against ethnic Russians in Donbas, vote for independence in Donbas, Kiev attacks on Donbas, then Donbas defense against Kiev forces.
And you made my day : Space War, Outspace War ! Please give date of battles ! Please, not from Wookiepedia !
You made what, a search with keyword on google ? you gave me expressions (Succession War, Jihad), historical terms ( Cold War, Colonial War), economical terms (Tariff War)...
"The scale of force use in Libya that coalition used and what Russia use is like comparing cat to elephant."
You beginned by comparing two wars, by scale of force ( what a blur term ), and I answered you on the relativity of your "scale of force" : and you "don't understand your argument" ?
I can do nothing more for you, I loose my time with you.
You are really a dumbass froggy, solid dumbass. You negate existence of type of War because it was not happen... you are really idiot you know that? How many Cyber Wars did world saw in last 100 years... none? So cyber War don't exist right? The Space War is term of conflict that is in action outside atmosphere on low to high orbit... but for you it is impossible and it don't exist because nobody for now shoot to each others in low orbit...
Froggy you are a half brain or just trolling?
Those are a types of war that were defined and you don't understand them froggy... that's sad, because it's only show how uneducated you are.
Just saw a report from mariupol Don't know if the woman being interviewed was Russian or Ukrainian, but her response was 'I don't care if this is Russia or Ukraine I just want peace'
"And nothing on paper... without a deal with signs, it is worthless." Most international treaties and agreements are gentleman agreements, even if signed there is no way to enforce them. The truth is there is supporting evidence of that agreement, and the west broke it. Im not going to discuss the morals of the situation, I'm sure the Polish people are grateful for that and I think I can understand you, but still you cant blame the Russians for not trusting the west and being anxious with having the biggest military alliance in the history of the world at their doorstep.
Kharkiv isn't on the way to Crimea. It would be a good feint to draw Ukrainian defenses (and that is where the Ukrainian tank factory is, too), so I think Ukraine would probably defend Kharkiv no matter the cost. On the other hand, if Russia wanted to knock Ukraine out, Kharkiv would be the place to go end it and make the Ukrainian's sue for peace.
A few mortar rounds lobbed towards a base in Afghanistan doesn't count.
Sol is talking about a massive barrage where several batteries all fire at a target. If you have a time-on-target barrage where a divisional-sized unit brings every mortar, tube and missile arty asset on one target, you won't be able to stop that barrage.
There was no agreement if there was only words... politician say one, think other, do something else. This is how politics work, that's why you have a treaty, charts, deals and every single one is on the paper... you sigh it, you are oblige to work alongside it.
When you get a job do you believe in everything you boss say including your salary or you want that on paper. When Bank give you loan, it give you on pretty eyes and for word that you will pay them, or they demand a deal on paper, ect. PAPER my friend is universal rule in legal department and in politics, because politician can say to you everything you want, this is his job... he say what you want to get what HE want. So there were NO agreement... one dude said something, other was happy to hear that, both lied that day en mass. NO paper, NO agreement... I was not there, I have no idea what that dude say about, he was drunk. WE DID NOT SIGN ANYTHING, we just talk. Simple, no paper, no fun.
And we Poles... well we were screw up by deal on paper and deal without it. That's why we rather don't believe in international treaties.
And you know that this works in both ways... the largest military alliance on the world was Warsaw Pact, and nobody ask "west" if they like it or not. So why "west" should now ask if Russia would like it. And without Evil capitalistic fascist NATO on the borders" whom Kremlin would scare own citizens?
We haven't face a 'peer' adversary in decades capable of massed fires. Perhaps this is why.
C3I and firepower is so lethal, it makes a conventional attack in the open so dangerous and dumb nobody tries it. Which brings us back to where infantry was in WWI.
Think about it. Up until this Summer when Russia started supplying the rebels with tanks, arty, etc., this was an infantry-centric COIN war being waged by the Ukraine. Ukrainians were traveling in buses, trucks, civilian cars. Mobility was the key.
The Russians/Rebels have been able to catch the Ukrainians in their soft-skin vehicles in the open.
Lesson: Even if dispersed, every vehicle worth shooting at needs to be armored against small-arms and arty splinters. The equivalent of an APC is going to be needed to transport men, fuel, ammo, medics, etc.
What would arty splinters do against wheeled armor like BTRs or LAV or Strykers? I can see a shitload of deflated tires stopping an attack in its tracks.
Some of rounds will be intercepted, algorithm can target those who would do potential the largest damage to critical positions. But you can stop as you said only a small salvo, everything else.. will break the screen. That's why, force field...
But if would not happen then you would say... it's bullshit, it never happen! War in low orbit.. it's bullshit in never happen... war in interplanetary space... bullshit, it never happen.
To the moment it WILL happen. Your thinking is genius, nothing exist and it's bullshit to the moment it happens. You are ridicules with your narrow mind and lack of even basic imagination. Sad froggy, very sad.
well my thinking was on the USMC and SOCOM as well as US Army Light Infantry units. speaking of C3I. you spot a Company Landing Team flying over the horizon. you track, launch UAVs and see them as they get off the MV-22s. instead of trying to engage with your own infantry you simply launch steel rain and catch the men and the aircraft on the LZ.
same thing applies to an airborne op, the 101st doing a heliborne raid or SOCOM landing in rubber raider craft.
nations are looking for force multipliers at a discount. artillery in my opinion can be that...and we're not prepared to deal with it....especially if its protected by decent air defenses
Now this is interesting thing... and you are not alone in that form of thinking. Some time ago BAE Systems with cooperation of Swedish Embassy in London invite Polish representatives for symposium about possible replace of fleet of BMP-1 in Polish service with CV90 platform. There was also part about conclusions that BAE reach observing the war in Ukraine. Increasing the level of protection against artillery was one of them, so you are walking in the right direction with your thinking.
Jihad is a symbolic type of Religious War (I was sure that you get that) and as you notice I did not because of that put on the list the Religious War.
Psychological War and Psychological Warfare is exactly the same thing, question of use in sentence. In dictionary P. warfare will redirect you also to P. war and vice versa.
Do I really need to be a first grade teacher to you... from Encyclopedia Britannica:
War Alternate title: warfare
From other dictionary's to be more precise because you may feel lost:
Warfare: The waging of war against an enemy; armed conflict.
The game plan we use against Islamic insurgents for the past 14 years does not translate to an enemy that has those capabilities.
It's one of the reasons I think we should ship off a couple battalions of light infantry to each of the Special Forces Groups and make SOCOM the go to force for operating against non-peer adversaries and have the regular forces re-learn how to fight peer adversaries.
Nothing to respond, you proven to everybody what I've just said, You're not able to do differente between war and warfare. You quote Encyclopedia Britannica ? Okey, perhaps you just forget to read alternative definition : that's why there is a little B after the little A :
Military operations marked by a specific characteristic: guerrilla warfare; chemical warfare.
We can monitor enemy movements and target large formations of artillery and rockets to prevent the enemy from massing fires on us. The real challenge is preventing the enemy from staying dispersed and using electronic fire direction control and time on target methods to fire from multiple positions but hit us all at the same time. This multiple source time on target is hard to defend against because if you survive, you can only target one location at a time while taking fire from the other locations. The way to prevent this massed fire from dispersed enemy is with jamming if communications.
Jamming will not always work, and you can bypass it with giving the coordinates and time of salvo on ordinary paper day or couple before. Units will move on the position and in the right moment open fire, it's rather primitive method but if something is stupid but it works, it's not stupid.
The current doctrine, in French army, is to detect the barage and and get out of his way before the rain. Lot of money has been put on counter battery radar, new vehicle, like CAESAR, can leve their zone within one minute, even while firing.
"Because Putin wants to prevent Nato and EU-memberships, there cant be any peace. If current frontline would be new border-line of Ukraine and Russia, then what would stop Ukraine from joining EU and Nato in the future? Nothing would stop and due to this Putin is insisting some quirky federation model where Russia could veto-prevent all political issues inside Ukraine."
Rapid displacement works for mounted type units in expeditionary settings, but dismounted units cannot put enough distance between them and the impact fast enough (imagine 81mm platoon hiking with mortars on their back).
Also, towed artillery takes much longer to move than any time of flight for enemy artillery (the longest time of flight is 3 or 4 minutes and counter battery radar will take some valuable time to compute leaving you less time to react).
Targeting enemy fire support is still a preventive necessity.
Don, you are nitpicking moments in history. On top of that you use rather colored words to paint things that happened. All this to make a story to suit your views .. and you probably even know your doing it.
The whole US instigated coup thing is stretching the truth big time , wile ignoring all other factors and ignoring the Russian's meddling in the government before it to the extent that they at the last moment changed their minds about a treaty both the EU and The Ukraine wanted. Your fascist driven moves against Russians consists of one speech by one parliamentarian of a very small minority opposition party.
The vote for independence did not mean anything since it was unconstitutional and engineered by the big brother to the east.
After this you forget one crucial point: the Russian Rebels tried to succeed violently, something that any sovereign government is allowed to oppose!
Then you talk about defense, when you mean there was mutual combat and again forget to mention major Russian intervention.
I got a tip for you, Don, Putin pays for supporters like you!
How is this even news? Artillery never ceased doing what it does best just because insurgents don't have it in significant numbers. You could say the same about tanks, helicopters, torpedoes, AshM, naval mines, assault bombers, radars, drones, ect. Didn't they have you dig foxholes and then blow up demolitions close by to simulate a artillery strike in boot camp? At least we had it. Removed the worst shock from the first real artillery strike according to one volunteer in Ukraine.
have you even read the comments? i stated clearly that its a danger that i feel isn't being properly taken into account with the design of many units. if you just want to be negative go elsewhere. i don't have the time or patience for a smart ass know it all that makes condescending statements
The one true Takeaway I see from the conversation here between you Don and ex-Shas is that history and politics aside, the moment one lets his guard down one must expect his throat to be cut. Lets take that 40 types of war list and add 50 shades of grey. Letting your guard down even in this day and age of modernity, civil rights, Human rights, UN etc. still means getting a raw deal in a trade agreement, getting a raw deal in a territory agreement, raw deal in a tech. transfer, raw deal in international finance, raw deal in many many other forms of negotiations.
At the end of the day regardless of whatever legal/moral/ancient history justification anyone gives......we have to realize that you cant live next to a Russia or (insert powerful neighbour here) and then expect things to be perfect while continously degrading your own defenses. The Ukrainians bought this on to themselves and Russia obliged. the same way my own country bought it on ourselves in 1962 and the Chinese obliged. Never again though.
You want an example of another country sandwiched between a powerful neighbour, another crazy neighbour and the worlds sole superpower all doing their best to play "the great game"......Its South Korea. And my god look at how well they defending.And full marks to the Taiwanese for at least trying and not relying on some piece of paper treaty.
Nimr type vehicles available in multiple variants including AT, is arguably a better option for a small country such as LTU, than say, Boxer APC/IFV.
One could ponder too if Ukraine will be procuring such Nimr vehicles in different variants from UAE, as part of a reported commercial order being placed with UAE at IDEX?
More accurately, nationalists and relative ultra-nationalists. So it's separatist ultra-nationalists of Kremlin-supported E Ukrainian side vs ultra-nationalists of unified Ukraine side. That is indeed a horn-locking crisis situation which needs to be resolved first - getting beyond the 'us vs them' mindset. As one can shout name calling over and over as part of the propaganda, but it only further enables and sustains the unnecessary violence. That said, Kiev is arguably more capable than the other side of governing in more liberalized, open and democratic form as it struggles to restructure itself and tackle corruption while simultaneously fighting an escalating separatist invasion.
Exactly, hence the immediate need and justification for a monitoring force and even UN peace-keeping force to interject to ensure and bolster the chances for the Peace and cease-fire to take hold in and around Mariupol. Any continued assault and offensive would just be barbaric and force more unnecessary cycle of violence. The poor lady, truly.
The new Ukrainian government definitely has the smell of 'Right wing nutter nationalist' about it. But that is just an other label. I do wonder if that is not a natural reaction to seeing how your big neighbor is the deciding factor in your internal politics instead of yourselves as citizens. I refer to the Ukrainian wish to 'go the western route', Janukoviches mandate, until Putin made him 'change his mind'.
As far as the separatists are concerned, they seem to be truly convinced they are fighting for their lives, which shows in their motivation and besides military aid from Russia likely is a defining factor in why they are winning. I believe the so called threat to their existence, as Russians inside the Ukraine is a made-up one. They were manipulated in thinking they had to fight to be safe, but that makes it no less real in their heads.
Lastly: Nationalism is one of the best tools a populist power-hungry politician has in his/her arsenal.
Often yes! And that includes the US meddling in Iraq because of rather dubious reasons. I am an equal opportunity critic of truth manipulating bullies ..
You should have seen my rants about the second Gulf War... which in a way made this whole mess we are in now possible and empowered Russia, Iran and North Korea..to potentially do bad things by weakening the US and destabilizing the Midle East even further... but lets not start again on that..
Don't think lasers can do the job. Lasers work by trying to set fire to the fuel of aircraft or missiles.
ReplyDeleteArtillery rounds don't have fuel to detonate.
Not to mention the mass of C-RAM rounds can knock the incoming off course. Light don't have the mass needed to knock things off course. (Unless you got a great big honking photonic drive)
A laser based anti-missile system for land is totally the wrong tech path to pursue.
That's nothing....I present this for your viewing pleasure :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l56K8eAtCig
ReplyDeleteLasers will be able to burn trough to the HE warhead but i have my doubts in ither laser or C-RAM handling a salvo from a single MLRS launcher let alone multiple MLRS
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7xyJOQ0pac
HE warheads don't detonate with heat. Insensitive ammunition has been a requirement for almost a decade.
ReplyDeleteShell fuses and cases are just as vulnerable as missile, there is a saturation problem.
ReplyDelete'Experience' gained in Iraq and Afghanistan is likely to prove useless if not outright dangerous.
Any infantry squad attempting to go to ground and return fire is rather likely to do quite well for the 30 seconds it takes a gun to be brought to bear on their position.
I don't believe mass fire is likely to be a big problem.
Guns are cheap and plentiful but a logistical nightmare to keep fed and mobile.
A savvy enemy (think Yugoslavia) is likely to deploy single guns everywhere under local control.
This makes sense ,combine that with an UAV and you have cheap and mobile precision strike or with unguided rockets a MLRS. I rationale is ither buying a strike ariplane or helicopter or number of MLRS with some guided ammo i take MLRS any day of the week.
ReplyDeleteOk boys... we can and wa ARE shooting down single mortar or artillery strike, couple of rounds can be engage on relatively safety and destroyed. Germans test own interceptor system as I like to call it, the Mantis in Afgan in Iraq (don't remember) and they work pretty fine.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.army-technology.com/projects/mantis/images/3-mantis.jpg
But we can engage limited number of rounds in limited time, full artillery strike or mortar strike from AMOS will break through it. I don't even mention a Rocket salvo, that will be impossible to intercepted by share number of rockets and not very precise trajectory. Forget boys, no lasers or guns can do this.
We can counter this only in two ways or three.
1. The most classic one, counterbattery fire... yeah you will be hit, but you can try to eliminate launcher from another action.
2. Destroy launcher before it can shoot.
3. Let's go in to SF... a fraking force field.
Raw Forces used in wars is pointless : What took one entire MLRS barrage from seppos could have taken 2 GBU 12 to OTAN. The only constant in war comparison are casualties. Do you play the idiot or what ?
ReplyDeleteAnd, okey for some 40 types of "wars" ? Please educate me by enumerating them ! I can't wait !
Its not Gorbachev who is driving this ,even tough it might have been a verbal deal its on record as meetings are ither taped or transcribed. We all know that even when in writing it only depends on power ,it just shows why Russia has every reason to not trust the West. And do you serously think everyithing spoken or agreed is signed on paper even when brookeing peace deals etc do you think it happend without new promisses and asurances.
ReplyDelete''On Feb. 10, 1990, between 4 and 6:30 p.m., Genscher spoke with
Shevardnadze. According to the German record of the conversation, which
was only recently declassified, Genscher said: "We are aware that NATO
membership for a unified Germany raises complicated questions. For us,
however, one thing is certain: NATO will not expand to the east." And
because the conversion revolved mainly around East Germany, Genscher
added explicitly: "As far as the non-expansion of NATO is concerned,
this also applies in general."
Shevardnadze replied that he believed "everything the minister (Genscher) said."
''As Genscher's chief of staff Frank Elbe later wrote, the German
foreign minister had "moved with the caution of a giant insect that uses
its many feelers to investigate its surroundings, prepared to recoil
when it encounters resistance."
US Secretary of State James Baker, a pragmatic Texan, apparently
"warmed to the proposal immediately," says Elbe today. On Feb. 2, the
two diplomats sat down in front of the fireplace in Baker's study in
Washington, took off their jackets, put their feet up and discussed
world events. They quickly agreed that there was to be no NATO expansion
to the East. "It was completely clear," Elbe comments.
''What the US secretary of state Baker said on Feb. 9, 1990 in the magnificent
St. Catherine's Hall at the Kremlin is beyond dispute. There would be,
in Baker's words, "no extension of NATO's jurisdiction for forces of
NATO one inch to the east," provided the Soviets agreed to the NATO
membership of a unified Germany. Moscow would think about it, Gorbachev
said, but added: "any extension of the zone of NATO is unacceptable."
And let's give Texas back to Mexico.
ReplyDeleteI must say that I don't understand your argument... first you write that "we don't compare wars by TNT" and then you compare the TNT of MLRS and GBU... you get me lost.
ReplyDeleteThe basic knowledge that teach in every military... I don't write the description for them, I still have some faith in you. I eliminate some philosophical or theory wars.
1. World War
2. Lighting War or if you want Blitzkrieg
3. Position War
4. Proxy War
5. Biological War
6. Total War
7. Cold War
8. Preventive War
9. Local War
10. Jihad
11. Nuclear War
12. Maneuvering War
13. Radio electronic War
14. Psychological War
15. Succession War
16. Hegemonic War
17. Civil War
18. Cyber War
19. Asymmetric War
20. Tariff War
21. Defense War
22. Colonial War
23. Air War
24. Sea War
25. Space War
26. Outspace War
27. Information War
28. Energy War
29. Hybrid War
30. Legal War
31. Conventional War
And nothing on paper... without a deal with signs, it is worthless. Those are only words that you can denied without any problem. No paper = No deal.
ReplyDeleteDon't forget California...
ReplyDeleteThe sequence of the rebellion was:
ReplyDeleteUS-instigated coup, fascist-driven moves against ethnic Russians in Donbas, vote for independence in Donbas, Kiev attacks on Donbas, then Donbas defense against Kiev forces.
And you wake up...
ReplyDeleteOkey, you play idiot.
ReplyDeleteAnd you made my day : Space War, Outspace War ! Please give date of battles !
Please, not from Wookiepedia !
You made what, a search with keyword on google ? you gave me expressions (Succession War, Jihad), historical terms ( Cold War, Colonial War), economical terms (Tariff War)...
"The scale of force use in Libya that coalition used and what Russia use is like comparing cat to elephant."
You beginned by comparing two wars, by scale of force ( what a blur term ), and I answered you on the relativity of your "scale of force" : and you "don't understand your argument" ?
I can do nothing more for you, I loose my time with you.
You are really a dumbass froggy, solid dumbass. You negate existence of type of War because it was not happen... you are really idiot you know that? How many Cyber Wars did world saw in last 100 years... none? So cyber War don't exist right? The Space War is term of conflict that is in action outside atmosphere on low to high orbit... but for you it is impossible and it don't exist because nobody for now shoot to each others in low orbit...
ReplyDeleteFroggy you are a half brain or just trolling?
Those are a types of war that were defined and you don't understand them froggy... that's sad, because it's only show how uneducated you are.
Offtopic - You see this yet? Russia is offering to sell the SA-23 (SA-20 follow-on) to Iran.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/23/russia-offers-sell-anti-aircraft-missiles-iran-nuclear-talks
@Next stop on the Rebel Express, Mariupol.@gg
ReplyDeleteKhar'kov is not bad too. The rebels defenitly have choice.
Just saw a report from mariupol
ReplyDeleteDon't know if the woman being interviewed was Russian or Ukrainian, but her response was
'I don't care if this is Russia or Ukraine I just want peace'
These aren't people ready to go hungry for kiev
Just imagine how much poop the anaconda will dump after fully digestion.
ReplyDeleteIf the food chain was a business, then business is always booming in Australia.
ReplyDelete"And nothing on paper... without a deal with signs, it is worthless." Most international treaties and agreements are gentleman agreements, even if signed there is no way to enforce them. The truth is there is supporting evidence of that agreement, and the west broke it. Im not going to discuss the morals of the situation, I'm sure the Polish people are grateful for that and I think I can understand you, but still you cant blame the Russians for not trusting the west and being anxious with having the biggest military alliance in the history of the world at their doorstep.
ReplyDeleteKharkiv isn't on the way to Crimea. It would be a good feint to draw Ukrainian defenses (and that is where the Ukrainian tank factory is, too), so I think Ukraine would probably defend Kharkiv no matter the cost. On the other hand, if Russia wanted to knock Ukraine out, Kharkiv would be the place to go end it and make the Ukrainian's sue for peace.
ReplyDeleteA few mortar rounds lobbed towards a base in Afghanistan doesn't count.
ReplyDeleteSol is talking about a massive barrage where several batteries all fire at a target. If you have a time-on-target barrage where a divisional-sized unit brings every mortar, tube and missile arty asset on one target, you won't be able to stop that barrage.
In fact, cyber war has happened at least one time, when Russia blackouted Estonia.
ReplyDeleteThe rest is bullshit, I'm vanished to explain you things.
There was no agreement if there was only words... politician say one, think other, do something else. This is how politics work, that's why you have a treaty, charts, deals and every single one is on the paper... you sigh it, you are oblige to work alongside it.
ReplyDeleteWhen you get a job do you believe in everything you boss say including your salary or you want that on paper. When Bank give you loan, it give you on pretty eyes and for word that you will pay them, or they demand a deal on paper, ect. PAPER my friend is universal rule in legal department and in politics, because politician can say to you everything you want, this is his job... he say what you want to get what HE want. So there were NO agreement... one dude said something, other was happy to hear that, both lied that day en mass. NO paper, NO agreement... I was not there, I have no idea what that dude say about, he was drunk. WE DID NOT SIGN ANYTHING, we just talk. Simple, no paper, no fun.
And we Poles... well we were screw up by deal on paper and deal without it. That's why we rather don't believe in international treaties.
And you know that this works in both ways... the largest military alliance on the world was Warsaw Pact, and nobody ask "west" if they like it or not. So why "west" should now ask if Russia would like it. And without Evil capitalistic fascist NATO on the borders" whom Kremlin would scare own citizens?
We haven't face a 'peer' adversary in decades capable of massed fires. Perhaps this is why.
ReplyDeleteC3I and firepower is so lethal, it makes a conventional attack in the open so dangerous and dumb nobody tries it. Which brings us back to where infantry was in WWI.
Think about it. Up until this Summer when Russia started supplying the rebels with tanks, arty, etc., this was an infantry-centric COIN war being waged by the Ukraine. Ukrainians were traveling in buses, trucks, civilian cars. Mobility was the key.
The Russians/Rebels have been able to catch the Ukrainians in their soft-skin vehicles in the open.
Lesson: Even if dispersed, every vehicle worth shooting at needs to be armored against small-arms and arty splinters. The equivalent of an APC is going to be needed to transport men, fuel, ammo, medics, etc.
What would arty splinters do against wheeled armor like BTRs or LAV or Strykers? I can see a shitload of deflated tires stopping an attack in its tracks.
Some of rounds will be intercepted, algorithm can target those who would do potential the largest damage to critical positions. But you can stop as you said only a small salvo, everything else.. will break the screen. That's why, force field...
ReplyDeleteBut if would not happen then you would say... it's bullshit, it never happen! War in low orbit.. it's bullshit in never happen... war in interplanetary space... bullshit, it never happen.
ReplyDeleteTo the moment it WILL happen. Your thinking is genius, nothing exist and it's bullshit to the moment it happens. You are ridicules with your narrow mind and lack of even basic imagination. Sad froggy, very sad.
well my thinking was on the USMC and SOCOM as well as US Army Light Infantry units. speaking of C3I. you spot a Company Landing Team flying over the horizon. you track, launch UAVs and see them as they get off the MV-22s. instead of trying to engage with your own infantry you simply launch steel rain and catch the men and the aircraft on the LZ.
ReplyDeletesame thing applies to an airborne op, the 101st doing a heliborne raid or SOCOM landing in rubber raider craft.
nations are looking for force multipliers at a discount. artillery in my opinion can be that...and we're not prepared to deal with it....especially if its protected by decent air defenses
Since when "Jihad" or "Psychological War" are "types of war" ???
ReplyDeleteYou're even not able to do differente between war and warfare.
Now this is interesting thing... and you are not alone in that form of thinking. Some time ago BAE Systems with cooperation of Swedish Embassy in London invite Polish representatives for symposium about possible replace of fleet of BMP-1 in Polish service with CV90 platform. There was also part about conclusions that BAE reach observing the war in Ukraine. Increasing the level of protection against artillery was one of them, so you are walking in the right direction with your thinking.
ReplyDeleteJihad is a symbolic type of Religious War (I was sure that you get that) and as you notice I did not because of that put on the list the Religious War.
ReplyDeletePsychological War and Psychological Warfare is exactly the same thing, question of use in sentence. In dictionary P. warfare will redirect you also to P. war and vice
versa.
Do I really need to be a first grade teacher to you... from Encyclopedia Britannica:
War
Alternate title: warfare
From other dictionary's to be more precise because you may feel lost:
Warfare: The waging of war against an enemy; armed conflict.
WAR = WARFARE = WAR
The game plan we use against Islamic insurgents for the past 14 years does not translate to an enemy that has those capabilities.
ReplyDeleteIt's one of the reasons I think we should ship off a couple battalions of light infantry to each of the Special Forces Groups and make SOCOM the go to force for operating against non-peer adversaries and have the regular forces re-learn how to fight peer adversaries.
Nothing to respond, you proven to everybody what I've just said, You're not able to do differente between war and warfare.
ReplyDeleteYou quote Encyclopedia Britannica ? Okey, perhaps you just forget to read alternative definition : that's why there is a little B after the little A :
Military operations marked by a specific characteristic: guerrilla warfare; chemical warfare.
But you can still :
https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1596470229/facepalm1.jpg
ReplyDeleteYour stupidity reach new level...
We can monitor enemy movements and target large formations of artillery and rockets to prevent the enemy from massing fires on us.
ReplyDeleteThe real challenge is preventing the enemy from staying dispersed and using electronic fire direction control and time on target methods to fire from multiple positions but hit us all at the same time. This multiple source time on target is hard to defend against because if you survive, you can only target one location at a time while taking fire from the other locations.
The way to prevent this massed fire from dispersed enemy is with jamming if communications.
Jamming will not always work, and you can bypass it with giving the coordinates and time of salvo on ordinary paper day or couple before. Units will move on the position and in the right moment open fire, it's rather primitive method but if something is stupid but it works, it's not stupid.
ReplyDeleteThe current doctrine, in French army, is to detect the barage and and get out of his way before the rain. Lot of money has been put on counter battery radar, new vehicle, like CAESAR, can leve their zone within one minute, even while firing.
ReplyDelete"Because Putin wants to prevent Nato and EU-memberships, there cant be
ReplyDeleteany peace. If current frontline would be new border-line of Ukraine and
Russia, then what would stop Ukraine from joining EU and Nato in the
future? Nothing would stop and due to this Putin is insisting some
quirky federation model where Russia could veto-prevent all political
issues inside Ukraine."
B I N G O !!!
NICE!
ReplyDeleteSo is this one:
http://youtu.be/QnZCI9m-L9k
Rapid displacement works for mounted type units in expeditionary settings, but dismounted units cannot put enough distance between them and the impact fast enough (imagine 81mm platoon hiking with mortars on their back).
ReplyDeleteAlso, towed artillery takes much longer to move than any time of flight for enemy artillery (the longest time of flight is 3 or 4 minutes and counter battery radar will take some valuable time to compute leaving you less time to react).
Targeting enemy fire support is still a preventive necessity.
Even so, paint the shell white and make sure it's spinning. Much harder for a laser to hit one spot long enough to burn through.
ReplyDeleteDon, you are nitpicking moments in history. On top of that you use rather colored words to paint things that happened. All this to make a story to suit your views .. and you probably even know your doing it.
ReplyDeleteThe whole US instigated coup thing is stretching the truth big time , wile ignoring all other factors and ignoring the Russian's meddling in the government before it to the extent that they at the last moment changed their minds about a treaty both the EU and The Ukraine wanted.
Your fascist driven moves against Russians consists of one speech by one parliamentarian of a very small minority opposition party.
The vote for independence did not mean anything since it was unconstitutional and engineered by the big brother to the east.
After this you forget one crucial point: the Russian Rebels tried to succeed violently, something that any sovereign government is allowed to oppose!
Then you talk about defense, when you mean there was mutual combat and again forget to mention major Russian intervention.
I got a tip for you, Don, Putin pays for supporters like you!
Add sensor-fused ammo and arty can get even more deadly.
ReplyDeleteHow is this even news? Artillery never ceased doing what it does best just because insurgents don't have it in significant numbers. You could say the same about tanks, helicopters, torpedoes, AshM, naval mines, assault bombers, radars, drones, ect.
ReplyDeleteDidn't they have you dig foxholes and then blow up demolitions close by to simulate a artillery strike in boot camp? At least we had it.
Removed the worst shock from the first real artillery strike according to one volunteer in Ukraine.
have you even read the comments? i stated clearly that its a danger that i feel isn't being properly taken into account with the design of many units. if you just want to be negative go elsewhere. i don't have the time or patience for a smart ass know it all that makes condescending statements
ReplyDeleteSkeptical libertarian has an awesome piece about the supposed fascists in Ukraine. You bring up good points.
ReplyDeleteOMG! One large country meddling in another small one?
ReplyDeleteThe horrors.
And Alaska, for sure.
ReplyDeleteIs that from "Aliens"?
ReplyDeleteThe one true Takeaway I see from the conversation here between you Don and ex-Shas is that history and politics aside, the moment one lets his guard down one must expect his throat to be cut. Lets take that 40 types of war list and add 50 shades of grey. Letting your guard down even in this day and age of modernity, civil rights, Human rights, UN etc. still means getting a raw deal in a trade agreement, getting a raw deal in a territory agreement, raw deal in a tech. transfer, raw deal in international finance, raw deal in many many other forms of negotiations.
ReplyDeleteAt the end of the day regardless of whatever legal/moral/ancient history justification anyone gives......we have to realize that you cant live next to a Russia or (insert powerful neighbour here) and then expect things to be perfect while continously degrading your own defenses. The Ukrainians bought this on to themselves and Russia obliged. the same way my own country bought it on ourselves in 1962 and the Chinese obliged. Never again though.
You want an example of another country sandwiched between a powerful neighbour, another crazy neighbour and the worlds sole superpower all doing their best to play "the great game"......Its South Korea. And my god look at how well they defending.And full marks to the Taiwanese for at least trying and not relying on some piece of paper treaty.
"It takes two to Tango, Don."
ReplyDeleteThat is exactly right.You couldn't have said it better.
That is the problem with countries torn between two powers. Ugly shit like this occurs regularly. Ukraine is one example out of countless others.
Nimr type vehicles available in multiple variants including AT, is arguably a better option for a small country such as LTU, than say, Boxer APC/IFV.
ReplyDeleteOne could ponder too if Ukraine will be procuring such Nimr vehicles in different variants from UAE, as part of a reported commercial order being placed with UAE at IDEX?
More accurately, nationalists and relative ultra-nationalists. So it's separatist ultra-nationalists of Kremlin-supported E Ukrainian side vs ultra-nationalists of unified Ukraine side. That is indeed a horn-locking crisis situation which needs to be resolved first - getting beyond the 'us vs them' mindset. As one can shout name calling over and over as part of the propaganda, but it only further enables and sustains the unnecessary violence. That said, Kiev is arguably more capable than the other side of governing in more liberalized, open and democratic form as it struggles to restructure itself and tackle corruption while simultaneously fighting an escalating separatist invasion.
ReplyDeleteExactly, hence the immediate need and justification for a monitoring force and even UN peace-keeping force to interject to ensure and bolster the chances for the Peace and cease-fire to take hold in and around Mariupol. Any continued assault and offensive would just be barbaric and force more unnecessary cycle of violence. The poor lady, truly.
ReplyDeleteI think Birits and France would also like to have back own Colony, Spain would like to have Florida back... and pufff... here goes USA.
ReplyDeleteThe new Ukrainian government definitely has the smell of 'Right wing nutter nationalist' about it. But that is just an other label. I do wonder if that is not a natural reaction to seeing how your big neighbor is the deciding factor in your internal politics instead of yourselves as citizens. I refer to the Ukrainian wish to 'go the western route', Janukoviches mandate, until Putin made him 'change his mind'.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the separatists are concerned, they seem to be truly convinced they are fighting for their lives, which shows in their motivation and besides military aid from Russia likely is a defining factor in why they are winning. I believe the so called threat to their existence, as Russians inside the Ukraine is a made-up one. They were manipulated in thinking they had to fight to be safe, but that makes it no less real in their heads.
Lastly: Nationalism is one of the best tools a populist power-hungry politician has in his/her arsenal.
If I'm not wrong, this one as over here, in Brazil.
ReplyDeleteLooks like Berlin and Paris don't want to support request for UN mission... Moscow also. I hope this is not true.
ReplyDeleteOften yes! And that includes the US meddling in Iraq because of rather dubious reasons.
ReplyDeleteI am an equal opportunity critic of truth manipulating bullies ..
You should have seen my rants about the second Gulf War... which in a way made this whole mess we are in now possible and empowered Russia, Iran and North Korea..to potentially do bad things by weakening the US and destabilizing the Midle East even further... but lets not start again on that..