Re: Page 222: Take Care What You Choose For Cover
Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2023 2:41 am
If you can tolerate a few F-bombs, you might like these 2 videos:
https://well-of-souls.com/forums/
The whole point of Kinzhal is taking 9M720 and making it air launched for higher velocity and range. MiGs fly very high to launch those - they don't need to fly low, since the range allows launches from outside contested airspace.
We know that it managed to damage a MIM-104, so it works, but those AA systems depend heavily on personnel qualification, airspace control integration and other conditions to work efficiently, and in less-than-perfect they've been frequently letting through even much slower Scud-derivatives launched from surface - like in Yemeni attacks on Riyadh. The missiles function, but we don't know if they are providing any real new advantage.
Not really, no. There are numerous significant modifications, but the air-frames are still highly similar, and until the 31K modification the role was downright identical - they are interceptor/air control aircrafts.
MiG-31 cannot use Kh-35 missiles, as they don't carry the necessary targeting suite. 31s would make a very poor platform for them anyhow - why would you risk your huge, noisy interceptors to launch a Harpoon-equivalent from relatively close range when even the lightest Russian fighters can carry it instead?
This thread is going places.
Kuznetsov is not an aircraft carrier - it's an aircraft-carrying AA cruiser. In design, it's aircraft launch capability was secondary to the air control and missile launch facilities, the former of which is pretty heavily outdated by now.
Russian forces engaged in A Certain Conflict never had numerical advantage on an operational level compared to their opposition (duh, one side used total mobilization and the other one did not), and their use of modern high-precision munitions - from guided missiles to kamikaze drones - exceeded that of their opposition by orders of magnitude. For example, the only guided missiles Ukrainian forces had through the entire conflict are Kh-35-derivative AShMs, while Russia has been using extensive amounts of 3M54s, and Ukraine has only started to receive guided M982 this year, while Russians have used 2K25 extensively since the first day of the conflict. If we count HIMARS GMLRS, then we'll also have to include 9М542, which Russians used a lot more. If anything, A Certain Conflict has shown that a relatively modernized limited force cannot do miracles and quickly win you a short victorious war against a large if outdated force if it simply digs in and holds on, even with airspace control and artillery advantage.
Russia went through 2 full-scale modernization campaigns between 1991 and 2022. Ukraine started one in 2014 and cancelled it in 2018 due to issues with Ukroboronprom. Beyond the current lend-lease and um, 5 (five) specific system development projects that had at least some degree of implementation that I know of, the Ukrainian forces saw next to no development between the current conflict and... well... their inception.
We require actual numbers to make such judgements. We have numbers on the scale of system use for some of them, but as far as "results" go - there is nothing to be done, as even with object control evidence we have in droves on both sides, there is almost never a means to tie a destroyed vehicle with a specific system. And that's with vehicles - for other types of targets, evidence collection is very limited in Russia and outright outlawed in Ukraine - what is present is mostly material used in bidirectional propaganda efforts (so, deliberately skewed), and absolutely no data to estimate actual effectiveness (targets disabled vs targets hit vs system applications, etc). We will not see much reliable information on effectiveness of many systems until way after the conflict. As always. If anyone ever claims that he clearly sees the scale of impact of this or that system or tactic in the conflict - it just tells us which part of Social Network Formerly Known as Twitter they prefer to read.
Not true - both Russia and NATO have larger observation and SIGINT satellite constellations than would be needed by the conflict in question.
There is a very simple one - that even with effective application of artillery and air superiority, those might be insufficient to rout the defending force, and if the defending force does not rout - then an infantry assault is required, and an infantry assault means lots of casualties for both sides - casualties that Russian armed forces are reluctant to take due to limited size of their force and political factors, hence outsourcing this type of work to The Affluent Person of Some Importance That Shall Not Be Named Here and his little Warcrime Inc business, or just biding their time and expecting artillery shells to do all the fighting for them. This actually mirrors the issues of many less-than-perfectly-successful military interventions made by USA in the past very clearly - well, those come with the cosplay. Most of the planet fell too hard for the "get air superiority and they crumble into dust" meme after Iraq - turns out entrenched infantry can be incredibly resilient as long as morale and CoC hold, even with a constant noise made by arty and air support.
Well, "significant modifications" can be a broad term...
I was refering to the Kh-31, also produced by "ОКБ Звезда".Mk_C wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 8:13 amMiG-31 cannot use Kh-35 missiles, as they don't carry the necessary targeting suite. 31s would make a very poor platform for them anyhow - why would you risk your huge, noisy interceptors to launch a Harpoon-equivalent from relatively close range when even the lightest Russian fighters can carry it instead?
We're getting off topic/political/controversial. @Arioch: Please either lock or spin-off I think.
Russia announced 2 modernization campaigns. I think the age of the equipment says something about how thorough and effective these campaigns were. I absolutely hate the meme but seriously, T-14 when? And that doesn't even touch on things like their NCO corps and internal fiscal controls that clearly remain in need of changes.
It's disingenuous to throw out "beyond the current lend-lease" as if the Ukrainians aren't rolling around in Leopards and Bradleys. It's modernized equipment in Ukrainian hands, it counts just as much as the casualties that hardware creates.
This feels like missing the forest for the trees. We have all the evidence we need to see that Russian forces have under-performed while the Ukrainians have over-performed. We don't need to know exactly how effective a particular piece of equipment is to how well the larger force is fairing.
The Soviets would never have called it a cruiser if it weren't for the Montreux Convention. Similarly, Japan would never call the Izumo a destroyer if it weren't for Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution. The Germans take first prize on this one though, with their "Air Sports Association". (Guys, Stillstorm might be on to something what with her "tools of deception." )
Thanks for translation.
Yup. Very scary:Gudo wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 4:54 pmThe Germans take first prize on this one though, with their "Air Sports Association". (Guys, Stillstorm might be on to something what with her "tools of deception." )
I am referring to the ukranians being fed intel from the united states satellite constellations, which are far superior.
The russians are having to invent all sorts of creative excuses for why no progress is being made despite what would normally be considered a persian-gulf esque equipment advantage that should've resulted in overwhelming victory in a short time, up to and including "aha I guess modern war doesn't work after all", when in reality it appears to be a skill issue. Ever since world war 1 the majority of casualties are inflicted by artillery. Although infantry remains necessary, whether you want it or not the fighting has been done by artillery for 100 years.Mk_C wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 10:46 amThere is a very simple one - that even with effective application of artillery and air superiority, those might be insufficient to rout the defending force, and if the defending force does not rout - then an infantry assault is required, and an infantry assault means lots of casualties for both sides - casualties that Russian armed forces are reluctant to take due to limited size of their force and political factors, hence outsourcing this type of work to The Affluent Person of Some Importance That Shall Not Be Named Here and his little Warcrime Inc business, or just biding their time and expecting artillery shells to do all the fighting for them. This actually mirrors the issues of many less-than-perfectly-successful military interventions made by USA in the past very clearly - well, those come with the cosplay. Most of the planet fell too hard for the "get air superiority and they crumble into dust" meme after Iraq - turns out entrenched infantry can be incredibly resilient as long as morale and CoC hold, even with a constant noise made by arty and air support.
A relevant point here would be an speculation of how really effective orbital control would be for ground conflict in Outsider, but that is still not very applicable as Loroi and Umiak both probably use shittons of thermonuclear/taimat WMDs for, khm, orbital support.
The wp:de version reads pretty much the same; a front organization for the training and establishment of an air force and an end run around the Treaty of Versailles. And while we're looking at pictures in the Wikimedia commons, you saw the pictures of the officer uniforms? And if the org was just a governing body, why would you create it with a uniformed officer corps in the first place?
Ah, now i see where you got that idea from.Gudo wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 6:16 pmAnd while we're looking at pictures in the Wikimedia commons, you saw the pictures of the officer uniforms? And if the org was just a governing body, why would you create it with a uniformed officer corps in the first place?
Like i sad, obsessed kiddies.Gudo wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 6:16 pmThe wp:de version reads pretty much the same; a front organization for the training and establishment of an air force and an end run around the Treaty of Versailles.
I agree here, thank you.
Gudo wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 4:54 pmRussia announced 2 modernization campaigns. I think the age of the equipment says something about how thorough and effective these campaigns were.
The irony: the youngest (and really, the only) Leopard 2 hull with confirmed age that we know of (the one confirmed on July 7 this year in Zaporizhie region, torn armor indicates B-tech series, 1987 or older) is about the same age than the oldest T-72B hull seen in combat with a confirmed age (02.02.2022 near Mar'inka, 1986 model frontal glacis). Really puts "age of the equipment" into perspective. One can argue refurbishment - but that contrasts poorly with the linked article.
Absolutely useless in the ongoing conflict, which confirmed that any operation that doesn't end in fanfare in under 3 months requires scale, not wunderwaffen. For all the advertised advantages, T-14 would be exactly as vulnerable to the banes of this conflict: heavy ATGMs, logistical disruptions and tens of thousands of ol' TM-62 pies that seem to be solely responsible for a massive share of all heavy vehicle disables and losses on either side so far (but again, it's extremely hard to get any solid figures). The big problem with tanks in this conflict is that nobody has enough of them, not that they are not cool enough. And regardless of how the program develops further in the future - I'm betting my left hand that T-72 derivatives will outlast all of us and our children, and will see use in military conflicts on the surface of Mars, should those ever arise.
Beyond the careful slide from "armament systems, tactics of their use and their effectiveness" to "who's winning what" - this really just indicates your social media preferences. I mean, >Forbes.Gudo wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 4:54 pmThis feels like missing the forest for the trees. We have all the evidence we need to see that Russian forces have under-performed while the Ukrainians have over-performed. We don't need to know exactly how effective a particular piece of equipment is to how well the larger force is fairing.
But that is what we're talking about here. Weapon systems, their use and their capabilities. I'm downright exhausted by how this sort of discussion became an impossibility in the light of recent events.
Here's a meme I actually hate. The classification certainly has nothing to do with only having two 35 ton aircraft lifts (against 4 on Nimitz, or two double-size (70+ tons) on de Gaulle and Queen Elizabeth) and measly two ammunition elevators (against , say, 11 on Gerald Ford), it does not have anything to do with the extremely limited air fuel supply, or the fact that Syria was the first ever case when the vessel's air wing has performed (absolutely meager scale) strike ops, or the vessel's straight up inability to maintain any form of continuous CAP with even one full-blood flight, or the fact that in a combat engagement the ship engages it's missile systems which prevents air ops (because the missile hatches are literally IN the flight deck), or the meager size of the air wing, or basically absent amphibious ops capabilities, all compared to still impressive missile arsenal (save the badly outdated airspace monitoring capabilities), comparable to 3 contemporary Ticonderogas. The sheer shining absence of a place for any sort of carrier ops in Soviet and Russian naval doctrine are also seemingly irrelevant. The cunning Soviets have duct-taped some launchers to an aircraft carrier and invented a new acronym, and that caused a brain aneurysm in the entire Turkish military command staff and foreign cabinet. A shining example of brilliant MASKIROVKA operations on part of the Soviet Naval Command! One cannot help but wonder why they were so dumb to plan the perspective Ulyanovsk as a Capital A Aircraft Carrier. Should've duct-taped a Granit to that one and called it a ТАВКР as well.Gudo wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 4:54 pmThe Soviets would never have called it a cruiser if it weren't for the Montreux Convention. Similarly, Japan would never call the Izumo a destroyer if it weren't for Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution. The Germans take first prize on this one though, with their "Air Sports Association". (Guys, Stillstorm might be on to something what with her "tools of deception." )
Thanks, I appreciate it.
And what do you think I'm referring to? Ukraine does not exactly have it's own satellite constellation. Eastern Ukraine is not a planet - both NATO and Russia have more than enough satellites in orbit to satisfy all their satellite intel needs for the conflict, many times over.
I am not even Russian, bruv.
Well that's the thing - we only have an extremely limited sample of military conflicts where persian-gulf esque equipment advantage has lead to a persian gulf esque outcome: the Gulf and Yugoslavia aaaaaaand... that's literally it. But somehow, those have completely defined our contemporary understanding of warfare. For some reason we've collectively decided to wipe the rest of warfare history completely off the board - including many cases where air superiority and artillery advantage did not sum up to a chill milk run across a country. An error that Russian military command seemingly made as well.
Unfortunately, in order to talk casualties - we also need actual figures that we simply don't have. And trust me, I looked. But on the functional level - casualties are not the singular defining factor of operations. Even if heavy support has downsized a company's defensive position to a platoon strongpoint - it still means that some force has to assault a platoon strongpoint. Which is a bad time even if you have a battalion to do it. Worse if your force is actually severely limited as well.
Great point here.D-503 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 7:25 pmThe most important of them , e.g. the "Deruluft" were of course way more obscure (google "WIVUPAL" or "Walter Stahr, Hauptmann" if you like). THEY e.g. had training facilities in Lipezk, Sowjet Union (imagine that) with lots of airplanes, all very well funded.
And around those there was a LOT of effort to disguise them, e.g. flow of planes, spare parts, fuel, money...
THOSE are the interesting bits of history.
Russia has four purpose-built reconnaissance satellites (two optical two radar).Mk_C wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 10:04 pmAnd what do you think I'm referring to? Ukraine does not exactly have it's own satellite constellation. Eastern Ukraine is not a planet - both NATO and Russia have more than enough satellites in orbit to satisfy all their satellite intel needs for the conflict, many times over.
How about blitzkrieg? How about the six days war in the middle east?
So everyone in mainland europe and whoever was defending 700,000 square miles of russia simply weren't trying hard enough? Perhaps since it cost only 40 million russians (and significant outside material aid) to stop 6 million germans there is in reality nothing to learn from that.Mk_C wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 10:04 pmEven if heavy support has downsized a company's defensive position to a platoon strongpoint - it still means that some force has to assault a platoon strongpoint. Which is a bad time even if you have a battalion to do it. Worse if your force is actually severely limited as well.
If it is unthinkable from the outset that the russians are simply incompetent, there will never be enough information. The gaps will always be filled with whatever is required for them to simply have had a bad plan, or wrong intelligence, or it was some other honest mistake.
Let us count the Cosmos(es)! No nav, no comms, no EWS, only military, only recon, only purpose-built, currently in orbit, no unknown package, all tracked and considered active by NORAD:
The one that sorta dragged out and kinda ended in Berlin the first time the opposing army did not fold immediately after the initial successful invasion?
That's actually a wonderful example - the one where the victorious side did not really have a massive technological advantage, with superior tactics andorganisation playing a key role instead - and despite successfully inflicting tremendous casualties, the conflict ended with only modest territorial gains for the victor (most of which were eventually ceded). Sounds kinda familiar. IDF must've really sucked if they didn't manage to take Cairo, in that logic.
You might've noticed that I did not state anything even remotely similar. On the contrary - I made focus on enduring Chain of Command and force-wide morale, which is far cry from something that can be achieved by simply trying hard enough.
Now come on - if we're counting blatantly exterminated civilian population as military casualties, then it would be only fair include the Holocaust victims in the tally for Germany - they were a part of German population after all, as citizens of Germany itself, or the occupation regimes. And there is a ton to learn from it - like how planned rapid operations devolve into wars of attrition.
It's entirely thinkable. I've stated as much, repeatedly. It's just that "these guys are dumb-dumbs while those guys are smarties" is an extremely reductive explanation - it doesn't do more than divide the humanity into Evil Idiots and Good Badasses, which always just so conveniently matches the ever-shifting political landscape, with Evil Idiots magically transforming into Good Badasses and vice versa in a matter of weeks whenever that landscape shifts. Like how the currently Extremely Competent Ukrainian Army is somehow largely the same one which was rated among the least capable on the continent prior to 2014, and has utterly failed to solve a particular [POLITICALLY_CHARGED_IDENTIFIER_OF_YOUR_PREFERENCE]ists issue for a very long period of time. Or how largely the same force that erased Yugoslavia from the map in a very short period of time spend decades in Afghanistan achieving nothing. Whose incompetence caused the entire Indochina conflict to go the way it did? The Falklands War? Enduring Freedom, Inherent Resolve and Freedom's Sentinel? It's never someone being simply incompetent, is it? I happen to think that there's a bit more to how armed conflicts develop than one side being Keystone Cops and the other one being Marvel's Avengers - things like numerical and technological capabilities, tactical and strategic goals, internal and international political climate, economy, logistical imitations, posturing, image making - all that jive that doesn't all fit into a dichotomy of competence and incompetence, even though it is often a factor among those. If anything, the ongoing conflict has shown that nobody on the planet is actually prepared for and capable of pursuing armed conflicts of such scale without fucking up a lot. Just like pretty much every such conflict did prior. Which paints the several conflicts that had significant risks of tremendous escalation but ended up going through very smoothly as extreme outliers rather than the norm that we should expect from modern warfare.
The gaps will always be filled largely with what people find most comforting to believe.
I think there are definitely some places you and I agree, even if it's not everywhere. I think we both agree that recent events in Ukraine have been a colossal miss-step by the Russians. NATO is expanded, western defense budgets are up, anti-Russian sentiments are up, and the Russians are paying a steep cost in blood and treasure. Personally, I don't think it what they gained was worth the price they're continuing to pay.
The T-14 is absolutely useless in any conflict. It truly is a wunderwaffen in the most perjorative sense of the word. I brought it up though in the context of announced versus completed modernizations. "T-14 when?" translates to "If Russia was actually engaging in a modernization campaign, why didn't they build any of their modern tank?" And yes, I know they did in fact build some, but just a piddling handful. I think it's quite telling none of them were sent to even quiet parts of the front; if the tank was capable of performing well, you'd think the Russians would want the world to know it. You know they have the logistics and manpower to do it if they wanted to. It seems it's better to be thought useless than show up on the front and remove all doubt.
There are B-52s expected to serve into the 2050s. Age of the hull is not nearly as important as the age of the sensors, optics, and computers inside. And it seems pretty clear that much of the lend-lease armor has newer kit than the Russian armor.Mk_C wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 9:44 pmThe irony: the youngest (and really, the only) Leopard 2 hull with confirmed age that we know of (the one confirmed on July 7 this year in Zaporizhie region, torn armor indicates B-tech series, 1987 or older) is about the same age than the oldest T-72B hull seen in combat with a confirmed age (02.02.2022 near Mar'inka, 1986 model frontal glacis).
From the article, emphasis added: "High losses and low production help to explain why most of Russia’s replacement tanks are old tanks that technicians pulled out of open storage, lightly refurbished and sent to the front with few or no major upgrades. A survey of reequipped Russian regiments is like a tour of a tank museum. There are 1978-vintage T-80s, T-62s from the mid-1960s and even T-55s from the late 1950s."
They call them destroyers. Just look at all this garbage. That's not all press releases in there either. Also, the JMSDF uses similar numbering conventions to the USN. DD is destroyer, H is for Helicopter. Hull number DDH 183: IZUMO.
So if Türkiye lets through a Nimitz class, it's not an aircraft carrier? Look, the whole point of my "Japan would never call the Izumo a destroyer if it weren't for Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution" bit was pointing out that nations can just... say shit. "We're not occupying, we're nation-building!" kind of shit. And if the cost of addressing that nonsense is too high, other nations will just roll with it.Mk_C wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 9:44 pmHere's a meme I actually hate... The Montreux Convention itself is not a Japanese or German internal classification where there's nobody to call bullshit on you - it's an international convention. Turkey government couldn't give half of a shit about which label the Soviets or Russia puts on a vessel - it applies the convention as far as it recognizes a vessel as a military vessel and/or an aircraft carrier, and only as much as it wishes...Kuzetsov does not have a judicial collision with the Convention because Turkish government does not recognize Kuznetsov as an aircraft carrier
It's not a surprise that the Kuznetsov is both designed and employed differently than other carriers. The Soviets had different strategic goals, industrial abilities, doctrines, and geopolitical realities than other carrier building nations. But just because it's not a Nimitz clone doesn't mean it's not an aircraft carrier. Just look at the:
It really doesn't. That "tub" is a millstone on it's navy's neck. Russia would be better served by selling it to some dude in Macau. That ship is soaking up manpower and treasure that the navy could use much more lethally elsewhere.
Guess I'll look those up
Well I meant more in terms of air superiority being decisive. Once they had destroyed the enemy air forces it was seemingly a walk-over. They also more than doubled their territorial extent, kindof an absurd claim to call it 'modest'.
Is force-wide morale supposed to produce something other than effort on part of the people involved? Ammunition and fuel perhaps?
Nobody here said that.
Right, hence my conclusion being that the russians are incredibly incompetent rather than that the ukranians suddenly made a U-turn into a world class fighting force.
Yes, that was extreme incompetence on part of the united states to engage in that conflict at all. From the outset there were white papers published by the military on how there was no win condition for iraq or afghanistan and therefore it would be drawn out and aimless. "i will know when i have won" is not a viable objective.
Yeah they really need to give up on that thing already...
That's exactly what happened with the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter. High-altitude interceptor turned into a ground strike aircraft. With a pretty telling record of striking the ground, indeed.