Printable View
No, it just doesn't make sense.
edit: ok now it does.
http://www.dnes.bg/world/2014/03/04/...ukraina.217770 (in Bulgarian)
Gazprom is discontinuing the discounts for gas deliveries to Ukraine. Ukraine is 1.2 billion in debt towards Russia for gas delivers for the past 2 years. Putin is considering giving them 3.2 billion to handle that payment to Gazprom.
Lol, so in effect, the US aid can go as payment to Gazprom. Guess they settled it like gentlemen.
The nukes will start flying as soon as someone decides that humanity has had a good run but its time is up. Might as well clear out the planet for the next dominant species. Personally, I'm rooting for dolphins.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myth
double post
Forget about Yanukovich, he's out, not a part of the equation any more. What I'm saying is what you could have done AFTER ousting Yanukovich to avoid the situation you're in currently.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Interim government, by the simplest and most accurate definition, is a government established to prepare for elections. That is its only purpose. It can only concern itself with elections as soon as possible and with day-to-day running of the country, like making sure taxes are still coming in, pensions going out, schools and government offices are opened and working and so on. It should not, under any circumstances, attempt to radically change domestic and foreign policies. I don't know what's so hard to understand about that.
This Maidan government didn't act like an interim government, no doubt about that.
What I'd like to hear from you, as a Ukrainian, is do you consider the deal I mentioned in the previous post acceptable?
In short, new (true) interim government, anything done by Maidan government null and void, more autonomy for Crimea, especially and new elections. Would it be acceptable to you personally, and your opinion of would it be acceptable to Ukrainians in general. What would be the reaction if Russia would offer a similar deal?
I share similar sentiments. The worst part is over. That doesn't mean things can't get ugly later on, however.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
We sold anything worth a dime from it to the Yanks. See the Serbian strategy for becoming non interesting target for invasion. Once this ordeal in Ukraine is over we will continue building up for our invasion of your country and immediate surrender afterwards. Then you have certainly some people to use your excess oil money..~DQuote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Nukes are (hopefully) to modern war what poison gas was in WWII. You have it but it makes no sense to use it.
Though if the US Navy massed a fleet to enter the Black Sea I would not take any bets one way or the other. It also makes more sense to dominate the area from the air.
The US has no tanks in Europe any longer. They are not air deployable so you are talking weeks. Also there are so very few trained tank crews. Most US combat brigades are either light infantry or Stryker Brigades.
A Stryker Brigade makes a nice speed bump for an armored force. Light infantry is hardly noticeable.
Their advantage over the Armored Brigades is that they have sufficient infantry for sustained operations.
Since the 1980 the US adopted organizations that fit the toys but not the requirements of battlefield sustainment. They created many officer slots but got rid of trigger pullers. They bought overpriced equipment that didn’t match the tasks. Their best pieces of hardware, the M-1 tank they keep trying to get rid of, along with the A-10 which the Air Force had dumped at last.
The leaders have a puffed up view of their capabilities because they have not had to fight a 1st class organization with out a vast technical advantage.
Their military begets have been about making manufacturers rich and giving top offices a job on retirement. Not building a war fighting and war winning force.
Drowns and helicopters do not take and hold ground. Light infantry or Strykers can’t hold against tanks. Most of their AT missiles are over rated.
I think the US and most of the west is going to have to get their butts kicked before they wake up and smell the coffee.
Tanks dominate the field, but most warfare nowadays is urban. Tanks are not very well suited for this kind of warfare. As for field battles, that's where A1 Warthog comes in. He eats tanks for breakfast, lunch and dinner.
Only if there is down right air supremacy. They are slow and just about anything will take them down.
You can’t say most war is urban. It depends on where you are going and what you want to do.
That is why you need infantry. But tanks can support infantry in cities. Just not lead the way as they do in the open field.
Absolutely. Without air supremacy we're screwed. But we are pretty good in the air.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Sure. Then again, if there's a huge enemy army in the field, why engage it on the ground? It's practically begging to be bombed into smithereens.Quote:
You can’t say most war is urban. It depends on where you are going and what you want to do.
Exactly. So why engage in the open field where the enemy can dominate? Stick with cities and largely nullify the tank advantage.Quote:
That is why you need infantry. But tanks can support infantry in cities. Just not lead the way as they do in the open field.
In mechanized warfare in Urban enviroment. One leaves tanks behind and before them are infantry and IFV´s. Tanks only come forward, when the force makes contact with something that the infantry with its indirect fire support cant take out. With a modern mechanized force one has three layers of AA support, from auto cannons of IFV´s and man portable short range AA missiles, to middle and long range AA missiles fired from mobile platforms, ending into your own fighter aircraft. The first layer can take out enemy helicopters efficiently and have effect on enemy jets, but the other two are the ones really for the jets / attack aircraft.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
The thing is that what we have seen in recent wars are either one force fighting another that is seriously outdated or a force fighting one hand behind their backs, because of the level of intensity of conflict or other factors. I think Fisherking is talking about an real all out war with modern equipment. Basically we have not even witnessed a modern AA in action in recent conflicts. Thus we cant say for sure how well it can defend friendly armored forces, but im fairly certain the capability is fairly better then we have witnessed from out of date AA.
1 Billion is a joke. Putin wanted to give them 15 (one source says 18) billion and the EU wanted to work with the IMF to provide an aid package of 20 billion.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fec6c296-9...#axzz2v0gZV8iV
That still wouldn't have made Mr. Yanukovich happy, who had somewhat more...ambitious plans:Quote:
Before Mr Yanukovich backed out of signing an integration treaty with the EU in November, a U-turn that triggered months of protests which led to his removal, the EU was prepared to join the International Monetary Fund in an aid package worth as much as €20bn over seven years, according to documents seen by the Financial Times.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/1...9BA08O20131211
:rolleyes:Quote:
Yanukovich has said his country needs $20 billion a year until 2017, and a total amount of $160 billion.
Sure, we're theorizing. We can look at what has worked as recently as 1991 and 2003. Granted, Russia is lightyears ahead of Iraq in terms of AA capabilities, but that doesn't mean that our tactics are somehow invalid. If an an actual combat engagement proves the tactics unsustainable, we'll adjust them. Our military folks are pretty good at learning from their mistakes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
Absolutely. You can argue that we are too feckless in our commitment to allies. You can argue that we fail to plan for the aftermath of a military operation worth a damn. You can argue that we get the humanitarian/state interest thing hopelessly muddled and inconsistent in our foreign policy. You can argue that our efforts to suppress insurgencies are hideously expensive and no more effective than less costly approaches.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
But busting up high-priced military targets? THAT we can do really well.
Which is the reason that we seldom get to do anything but fight grinding insurgency attrition campaigns (our opponents aren't stupid and refuse to play our best game by our rules) and send highly-trained and effective tankers like GelCube out into the desert as unspecialized light infantry.
Of course warfare is mostly about adjusting. There is no simple cure for everything.Otherwise all would be using such. What i am saying is that you still need a real ground component, for combined arms. There is no such thing as one trump card for all situations and enviroments.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
The difference is that our billion comes with no strings attached unlike the billions from the EU or Russia. And if they need more, we'll consider it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
I may be wrong in terms applied to the acting government but I (as well as many here) consider it a technical government to manage day-to-day affairs including both presidential and parliamentary elections until the latter are held in fall. Then the new majority (or coalition) in the parliament may (and must) be formed which is to appoint the real government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Proclaiming anything done by the present government void may be a dangerous precedent to awake tensions that will have hopefully calmed down by fall. By the way the acting president vetoed the notorious language law repeal which means returning to 2013 status quo. The important move was (to my mind) appointing two tycoons (which you dislike so much) the heads of Dnipropetrovsk and Donetsk regional administrations. They come from those regions and hold them in sway, so to say. One of those is the head of the Jewish community of Ukraine, by the way (talking of Nazis in the new government). This should demonstrate to the locals that the persons they respect so much are ready to cooperate with the new government and that the new authorities are not going to send any outsiders to rule them. People in the East of Ukraine are very distrustful of strangers and one of their greatest fears is (or hopefully was) that some Bandera-followers will come to rule them. Though, that was what Yanukovych did exactly:I live in central Ukraine and the head of the local administration was sent here (and almost all over the country) from Donetsk. There was a joke that people in Donetsk are afraid to leave their residence after dark as they are hunted, captured and sent to other regions of Ukraine to rule there.
As for the Crimea, frankly, I am not eager to keep it (in which I may be at odds with the popular sentiment in Ukraine). I did not feel there at home when came there before and I see no point in trying to persuade (or force) the people who are ever looking east to stay within Ukraine. Let them sail away Russiawards if it makes them happier (at least they believe so). I feel for Tatars, though: they will find it hard to put up with those who sent them away once from their land.
Ground component is paramount, no question about that. I only question the tank part of it. Mech infantry is indispensable and absolutely critical. Tanks? Not so much. You can find yourself in a situation where you don't need tanks; you are much less likely to find yourself not needing infantry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
Fisherking:
The tanks are air-deployable, it is just hideously expensive and inefficient, since the C5 cannot load more than 3 if I recall, and can only do 2 without range reduction.
The aviation side of things would probably do better against the Russian fleet than it would against the Russian ground forces. It is far more difficult to hide a frigate than to hide a tank. Moreover, the targets could be attacked at range and from flatter angles since there would be far fewer terrain obstacles to skulk around in. In short, it is exactly the kind of fight the USA can excel in because most of the answers have already been funded -- and any problem we can throw money at instead of blood is our kind of problem.
I do not care to calculate the cost per vessel destroyed -- and our cost per tank or apc destroyed would probably require scientific notation.
As I've always said, and been quoted by many - no plan survives contact with the enemy. :D
Kidding aside, I don't doubt a new high intensity war between world powers would leave many military experts flabbergasted how their expensive toys are rendered useless by most mundane things and some original thinking.
Funny how in later part of the bombing, we knew when the bombs would start dropping even before the air raid sirens gave us a warning. A few dozens seconds before, the dogs would get restless, and start howling in a very distinctive way. It was uncanny. After that, you knew the planes are near and it was only a question of whether the bombs would be first or sirens.
Enemy planes would waste their anti radar missiles shooting fake radar signals emitted from trucks that were driving around aimlessly. Wanna see how American pilots go berserk? Shine some light on a paper model of a newer Russian SAM system. Military geeks would know many more examples like that.
I wouldn't want to be in a mech battalion facing down a tank battalion...Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Tanks are quite cost efficient way to dispose mech infantry, IFV´s and other tanks and in similar sense useful in ground support for them. Specially for troops that cant rely on absolute air superiority. The thing is that both IFV´s and infantry are rather easily disposed. Tanks quite lot harder. Call me old fashioned, but i think infantry can use of bit of punch in form of tanks. Of course i am hailing from heavily covered terrain and not been bombed to stone age by anyone, so mine like anyone elses opinion is biased. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Certainly not, but nobody would expect you to face a tank battalion in the open field. In cities though things are different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
Here's an example of an overwhelming tank force being whipped by ragtag rebels.
"On the morning of 26 November, the Russian and their Chechen allies entered the capital in the motorised columns advancing from two directions, Nadterechny District and Urus-Martanovsky District, supported by several unmarked federal attack aircraft. According to Chechen commander Dalkhan Kozayev, the coup force in Grozny numbered 42 T-72 main battle tanks, eight BTR-80 armoured personnel carriers, various other vehicles, a number of aircraft, and more than 3,000 men.[5] Russian sources give similar figures of about 40–42 tanks (by one count, 14 of them manned by the Chechen opposition and the rest by Russians[3]), supported from air by six helicopters[3] and six Sukhoi Su-27 air superiority fighters,[6] but give much lower figures of no more than 1,000–1,500 allied Chechen militiamen (including Labazanov's 30 remaining fighters after his militia was defeated at Argun[3]). The attack was met with an improvised but fierce defense of the Chechen government forces and loyalist militias (prominently the battle-hardened Abkhaz Battalion[3] made of veterans of the War in Abkhazia and led by Shamil Basayev) in the city center, including an ambush near the Chechen presidential palace and the fighting at the State Security headquarters, the railway station and the television center. Soon the assault turned into a disaster as the defenders burned or captured most of the attacking armored vehicles, capturing scores of Russian servicemen in the process (mostly after having trapped a large group of them in Kirov Park, Leninsky district), and completely routed the opposition."
The A-10 was about to be phased out in the early 2000s or so, was saved because it was useful as scole air support and has now finally fallen victim to the recently released military budget cuts if I'm not mistaken. It is fairly well-armored but it's questionable how long it will survive against modern SAM systems.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
So are the russian military folks. And yes, they're lightyears ahead compared to Iraq in almost everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
I have the greatest respect for our military and their ability to improvise and overcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I don’t have the same to say about the top brass and military planers at the pentagon, however.
Once political aims and procurement enters the equation it seems to do a bad job at best.
You can send the best of the best to do the job but something happens to them very quickly. They either do as they are told or are washed out double quick.
Draw your own conclusions.
Sinking a fleet is the easy part. Getting there with the resources to do it would be the problem.
M-1 tanks are not air transportable. Too heavy to lift. The M-60A3 could be carried one per plane but it took all the Air Force had to move one Battalion if every plane was operational. It was never done.
Listen to Sarmatian. We did rotten in Serbia. We may, may, maybe, have gotten better but they were not the most sophisticated of enemies and look at the costs.
I think we would be embarrassed and humiliated if we took on the Russians. It would not be a one sided air battle and a one sided land battle. Maybe NSA could disable of lot of their trick stuff, but maybe Russia could do the same to us.
If we do it, do you suppose they don’t?
This a great example of dedicated infantry fighting a defensive battle, but if those Chechen´s would have had to attack the Russian force? As even in defensive warfare if one wants to win one has to attack at least locally. Unless we are talking querilla warfare, which leaves your entire civilian population on the mercy of the invader. How do you feel what would have been the turn out of if the Chechen´s had to attack similarly armed Russian armed force, even if Russian force was fraction of that strength?Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Allahu Akbar!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
*pulls the pin on the suicide vest*
Concerning the "lightyears ahead" thing, I just had an interesting thought.
Let's assume you could fire the projectiles of an AA gun faster than the speed of light. Wouldn't that mean that you have to aim behind the airplane because the bullet would travel back in time and hit the airplane where it was before you pulled the trigger? And wouldn't that also mean that the airplane would explode before you pulled the trigger which might trigger you not to pull the trigger which in turn would not make the airplane explode? Is that why most projectiles only travel at 1-5 times the speed of sound?
No obvious strings, since when it capitalist-land the new mother theresa?Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Of course you expect something in return even if you would never say so.
Attachment 12383Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Also regarding the ongoing discussion, isn't everyone attributing too much military might to Russia. Last I heard their army was a shadow of its former self and far worse equipped when compared with the US. If it comes to a fight, they will have the advantage of fighting on their home turf, but that can only take you so far.
Apparently minister level talks between Russia and Ukraine have started. Very promising.