War in Ukraine

#66,377
#66,377
#66,379
#66,379
I thought it'd have been clear by now, but apparently not. Twitter and Telegram are a cesspool of misinformation regarding most everything, especially when it comes down to the details of this war.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and tvolsfan
#66,380
#66,380
Septic said:
I thought it'd have been clear by now, but apparently not. Twitter and Telegram are a cesspool of misinformation regarding most everything, especially when it comes down to the details of this war.
Click to expand...
Please dig deep down in your septic tank and fill us in on the all important need to give 2 $hits about Ukraine.
 
#66,383
#66,383
illumiVOLi said:
Please dig deep down in your septic tank and fill us in on the all important need to give 2 $hits about Ukraine.
Click to expand...

I see you're stalking me across threads now.

I could enlighten you on why you should care - but like your Pootin jock sniffing friends, I'm not sure you're bright enough to understand.
 
#66,384
#66,384
clarksvol00 said:
I can read well enough to figure out Ras keeps using the term "destroy" while saying he didn't use the term "destroy." I can also read well enough to figure out that Ras put me on ignore rather than tell me if Russia or China had any recent infrastructure failures.
Click to expand...

Russia and infrastructure failures seem to fit like hand and glove. It's just that not all the infrastructure failures that coincide with Russia are Russian infrastructure. Although being brutally honest Russia was a huge part of the conglomerate that built much of the infrastructure in eastern Europe and parts of Asia. Commie concrete can be pretty good stuff, though. I have a few small pieces of the Berlin Wall that I chipped off with a sledgehammer - that was tough concrete.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tntar heel and clarksvol00
#66,386
#66,386
NorthDallas40 said:
Two are toast for sure. But it isn’t clear to me those are Bradley’s. In fact I’ll state they aren’t on looking at the pic again. Disagree on the third. They all look like mobility kills to me
Click to expand...

I still think that armor of any kind on this battlefield is risky business. First order of business for both sides should be figuring out how to get drones out of the sky. As long as they can observe moving vehicles and troops (even if you neglect a dropped grenade down an open hatch or a bomblet on the normally less protected top surface), nothing is safe on the ground. Eyes in the sky are a killer and that goes at least as far back as the Civil War. It's folly to pump money into armor and surface ships (sea going armor) as long as they are just observable slow moving targets of opportunity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tntar heel
#66,387
#66,387
Rasputin_Vol said:
Contractors overcharging for food they are not delivering to the frontlines. There is a racket being run at every level in Ukraine.

Click to expand...


That's something that has plagued militaries all over the world since forever; we've had our share of it as much as any other military in the world. Without doubt contractor greed and inept logistics prompted the development of quartermasters and quartermaster corps. Armies building from scratch don't have the infrastructure down pat, and those like our current military forget the lessons and go back to private contractors at great expense - a lesson available for learning from the Afghanistan experience if nothing else.
 
#66,388
#66,388
AM64 said:
I still think that armor of any kind on this battlefield is risky business. First order of business for both sides should be figuring out how to get drones out of the sky. As long as they can observe moving vehicles and troops (even if you neglect a dropped grenade down an open hatch or a bomblet on the normally less protected top surface), nothing is safe on the ground. Eyes in the sky are a killer and that goes at least as far back as the Civil War. It's folly to pump money into armor and surface ships (sea going armor) as long as they are just observable slow moving targets of opportunity.
Click to expand...
Armor has its place. But I’d hate to be in a MBT or IFV on an open battlefield that you don’t own the skies on. At least in this case neither side has air superiority
 
  • Like
Reactions: TVOLS and AM64
#66,389
#66,389
Septic said:
I see you're stalking me across threads now.

I could enlighten you on why you should care - but like your Pootin jock sniffing friends, I'm not sure you're bright enough to understand.
Click to expand...
Pootin and jock sniffin. Got it. No need for a debriefing. That explains it all
 
#66,390
#66,390
NorthDallas40 said:
Armor has its place. But I’d hate to be in a MBT or IFV on an open battlefield that you don’t own the skies on. At least in this case neither side has air superiority
Click to expand...

I was really against the AF getting rid of the A-10; but after seeing this war in Ukraine, I'm beginning to think their day has passed, too. It looks a lot like the grunt's life is a lot less secure, and it's never been a safe occupation from day one. In contested airspace it looks like any close air support is risky, and I can't see anything like an F-35 filling in for what an A-10 could do.

It seems like we spend too much time on expensive, flashy military toys while less sophisticated enemies are obsoleting concepts with something literally developed from toys. Not enough people with a fresh look asking "what if". All too often it seems in both military and industry innovation loses out to concepts of modern management, and considering that was basically the battle that Billy Mitchell tried to fight, it's a pretty bad look. Seems like we are expending far too much thought on war in the air without considering why war in the air is important ... to support the war on the ground that takes ground.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#66,391
#66,391
AM64 said:
I was really against the AF getting rid of the A-10; but after seeing this war in Ukraine, I'm beginning to think their day has passed, too. It looks a lot like the grunt's life is a lot less secure, and it's never been a safe occupation from day one. In contested airspace it looks like any close air support is risky, and I can't see anything like an F-35 filling in for what an A-10 could do.

It seems like we spend too much time on expensive, flashy military toys while less sophisticated enemies are obsoleting concepts with something literally developed from toys. Not enough people with a fresh look asking "what if". All too often it seems in both military and industry innovation loses out to concepts of modern management, and considering that was basically the battle that Billy Mitchell tried to fight, it's a pretty bad look. Seems like we are expending far too much thought on war in the air without considering why war in the air is important ... to support the war on the ground that takes ground.
Click to expand...
Air and naval power can destroy vast swaths of territory however only boots on the ground can occupy it
 
  • Like
Reactions: tntar heel and AM64
#66,392
#66,392
NorthDallas40 said:
Air and naval power can destroy vast swaths of territory however only boots on the ground can occupy it
Click to expand...

Exactly. Look back on the WW2 island campaigns and days and days of bombing and shelling where the Japanese troops were concentrated with little hope (except overhead cover) of being out of range; and when the landings started, they were still always opposed with high casualties. In the presence of airpower, ground troops (and surface navies) are dependent on air support; but air power doesn't win wars or take territory. It seems like a lesson we never learn. I actually think people know it, but others in high places don't want to acknowledge it or the "been there, done that" people.

My dad was a fighter pilot until he retired from the AF - primarily air defense, but his first experience was in P-47s during WW2 generally air to ground missions (few because he didn't get there until after D-Day) - later in Korea directing radar controlled air strikes over N Korea. I remember he used to say that the AF was neglecting close air support, but then he wasn't in a position coming up with the next fighter (that wouldn't need guns ...).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pennheel and NorthDallas40
#66,395
#66,395
BeardedVol said:
Lol, from "3-day special operation", to demilitarizing Wagner PMC.

Everything is going according to Putin's plan.
Click to expand...


Sounds like fun. I don't believe in private militaries in the first place (including even things like Blackwater), so this plan ticks at least a couple of boxes. Apparently another of those fantastic Russian games of strategy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: clarksvol00, USF grad in TN and Septic
#66,396
#66,396
AM64 said:
I was really against the AF getting rid of the A-10; but after seeing this war in Ukraine, I'm beginning to think their day has passed, too. It looks a lot like the grunt's life is a lot less secure, and it's never been a safe occupation from day one. In contested airspace it looks like any close air support is risky, and I can't see anything like an F-35 filling in for what an A-10 could do.

It seems like we spend too much time on expensive, flashy military toys while less sophisticated enemies are obsoleting concepts with something literally developed from toys. Not enough people with a fresh look asking "what if". All too often it seems in both military and industry innovation loses out to concepts of modern management, and considering that was basically the battle that Billy Mitchell tried to fight, it's a pretty bad look. Seems like we are expending far too much thought on war in the air without considering why war in the air is important ... to support the war on the ground that takes ground.
Click to expand...

The Intel we are gathering from this war is invaluable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Volsdeep4, AM64 and USF grad in TN
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top