Great Power contentions

[spmetla]

Nothing too critical in this, just revisiting the use of anti-tank guns that we had discussed a few months ago.

Seems they're being used as indirect fire AT guns, quasi artillery I guess, I guess with the right spotters it can be done. Interesting to see them digging so they breach can recoil enough as AT guns are much lower in profile. At this high angle of fire for an AT gun they should get good penetration of most vehicles assuming its a good hit, even with dated 100mm AT guns.

Guess in a war, guns are guns, best use em.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HOqLDIDOT4

[Pannonian]

Nothing too critical in this, just revisiting the use of anti-tank guns that we had discussed a few months ago.

Seems they're being used as indirect fire AT guns, quasi artillery I guess, I guess with the right spotters it can be done. Interesting to see them digging so they breach can recoil enough as AT guns are much lower in profile. At this high angle of fire for an AT gun they should get good penetration of most vehicles assuming its a good hit, even with dated 100mm AT guns.

Guess in a war, guns are guns, best use em.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HOqLDIDOT4

Makes me think of the remark that Operation Barbarossa was the biggest moving tank museum in history.

[Montmorency]

Nothing too critical in this, just revisiting the use of anti-tank guns that we had discussed a few months ago.

Seems they're being used as indirect fire AT guns, quasi artillery I guess, I guess with the right spotters it can be done. Interesting to see them digging so they breach can recoil enough as AT guns are much lower in profile. At this high angle of fire for an AT gun they should get good penetration of most vehicles assuming its a good hit, even with dated 100mm AT guns.

Guess in a war, guns are guns, best use em.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HOqLDIDOT4

Notice the reference later in the video to the earlier-discussed practice of commuting to the frontline: "We spend most of the day at work and come back in the evening, take a shower, have dinner, and go to bed... If we're not called up, it's a day off."

I have no idea how AT cannons could be useful as indirect artillery, but then again, we've seen footage of both Russian and Ukrainian tanks in makeshift batteries providing indirect fire (effectiveness unclear to me). Maybe it just lends more support to the argument that the armor arm must evolve back in the direction of the assault gun or SPG archetype.

This war has exposed a lot of categorical myths about the nature of 21st century warfare. Fixed fortifications and semi-trained infantry, tankers, and gunners have all re-emerged to play a fundamental role, with lesser but surprising contributions from anti-tank mines and centralized partisan and stay-behind operations.

[Montmorency]

Lol. "European Decolonization," Serbian Brotherhood edition. (Yugoslavia is just flatly named Serbia here. Not just Serbia even, but "Serbian Tzarate.")

[Hooahguy]

Lol. "European Decolonization," Serbian Brotherhood edition. (Yugoslavia is just flatly named Serbia here. Not just Serbia even, but "Serbian Tzarate.")

*snip*

There's a US version too, which is hilarious.



Unironically Id love to see a Republic of Lakotah. Also its clear that the author knows less than nothing, because a) if it truly was decolonization then it would all be Native land (which at this point I support tbh), and b) the Republic of Mormons would be called Deseret before anything else.

Also France randomly being in there made me laugh. Like what is France going to do with Missouri lol. At least them taking back Louisiana makes sense.

[Montmorency]

There's a US version too, which is hilarious.



Unironically Id love to see a Republic of Lakotah. Also its clear that the author knows less than nothing, because a) if it truly was decolonization then it would all be Native land (which at this point I support tbh), and b) the Republic of Mormons would be called Deseret before anything else.

Also France randomly being in there made me laugh. Like what is France going to do with Missouri lol. At least them taking back Louisiana makes sense.

Decolonization means the restoration of old colonies. Although it's unclear how this could happen in the United States if the European states are themselves decolonized.

The most egregious history fail is a Confederate States without South Carolina or Georgia.

It's telling that some of the only full countries this account would prefer to exist are a Serbian empire and the Confederate States of America.

[Montmorency]

Something I don't understand. While I've spend distinctly less time closely following the Ukraine war over the past month, and some analysts such as Henry Schlottman have been disengaged, there has been a lot of commentary about possible redeployments of Russian troops from southern Kharkiv oblast (i.e. Izyum bridgehead/Lyman area) to the general southern theater, with the assessed purpose of providing an operation reserve

As of August 2 JominiW had 12 BTG in the Kherson bridgehead, which is in the realm of reported strength over most of the past 4 months.

Already some Ukrainian government sources (whom I don't deem reliable for such details) claimed 30 BTGs in the Kherson bridgehead since a few days after the first Ukrainian bombardment of the bridges in the area (~July 19).

A less well-known OSINT account, commonly cross-cited, finds up to 50 BTGs in Kherson oblast alone, with a slight majority cis-Dnistrian.





But this seems unbelievable to me on several counts. First, that RuFor would have transferred so many units deep behind their lines in the south, when the obvious means of reinforcing against an expected offensive, such as in Zaporizhzhia, is to build defenses in depth close to the frontline. Second, that RuFor could have up-to-doubled their fully-formed complement of forces in the Kherson bridgehead either within just a couple of days once the bridges came under fire, or over time after the bridge's ability to support extensive movement, let alone of heavy equipment, had been badly compromised. And does rail capacity to move multiple brigades along a single, single-track line through the south uo to the river even exist? Or if it was by motor transit, such vast convoys would have easily been detected by satellite, presumably to be disseminated throughout the Internet.

Third, though tangentially I believe this analyst is severely lowballing the quantity of separatist combat elements, if there were only a brigade or two left to contest the Bakhmut front against the Ukrainians, RuFor would absolutely not suddenly have retained the combat power to restart the process of gradual territorial gains in the past week.

The reports of Russian retrenchment from the Izyum bridgehead are too much to ignore, but there's something off here. Like, if the embedded analysis were true in describing the allocation of forces between Melitopol and Izyum, then the Ukrainian counteroffensive, whenever that is, would be better off trying to contain RuFor to Kherson province while swinging east to join an eastern advance from Kharkiv to perform a pincer around the entire separatist zone - rather than playing to the expectation of some sort of southern offensive.

[Montmorency]

Seems the Ukrainians blew up some facilities and at least 8 planes in a Crimean airbase. American and Ukrainian authorities have put forward a number of vague and/or contradictory explanations for how this might have occurred, suggesting Ukraine wants to obscure their capabilities to a degree.


I knew from the beginning of the war that estimating crew or passenger casualties from vehicle losses was going to be tricky. Even when vehicles aren't destroyed or captured when parked with no or minimal crew, even a record of a catastrophically-destroyed vehicle allows the possibility that the explosion occurred at a length from impact, allowing passengers to escape, or maybe even as a followup well after combat subsided. Crews and passengers abandon vehicles for all sorts of reasons, often related to panic - put even a tank under enough machinegun fire or small arms fire, or within some proximity to artillery detonations, and the human element might decide to take their chances elsewhere. (In case you ever feel like cursing a wargame's morale model.)

We've seen some crazy footage of the survivability of tanks. If you're not badly injured or disoriented, even a couple of seconds before detonation or deflagration can be enough to leap out of a hatch, depending on countless unique factors.

This clip might take the cake. A full-mounted BMP takes a pretty serious hit, perhaps from a missile. The front part - engine compartment? - immediately goes up in flames. Yet even so, I count at least 6 soldiers escaping the burning vehicle in decent shape, which amounts to up to an entire mechanized infantry squad associated with a BMP (vehicle crews are drawn from passenger squads) escaping a permanent vehicle writeoff more or less intact.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1557075448198303744

[Montmorency]

...

[Pannonian]

Notice the reference later in the video to the earlier-discussed practice of commuting to the frontline: "We spend most of the day at work and come back in the evening, take a shower, have dinner, and go to bed... If we're not called up, it's a day off."

I have no idea how AT cannons could be useful as indirect artillery, but then again, we've seen footage of both Russian and Ukrainian tanks in makeshift batteries providing indirect fire (effectiveness unclear to me). Maybe it just lends more support to the argument that the armor arm must evolve back in the direction of the assault gun or SPG archetype.

This war has exposed a lot of categorical myths about the nature of 21st century warfare. Fixed fortifications and semi-trained infantry, tankers, and gunners have all re-emerged to play a fundamental role, with lesser but surprising contributions from anti-tank mines and centralized partisan and stay-behind operations.

Just a note. Stugs in WWII were under the command of artillery, with crews consisting of trained artillerymen, whereas tanks were crewed by tankers. Stug sights included ranges for indirect fire. AFAIK their guns were the same. So my guess is the use of AT guns for indirect fire consists mainly of training.

[Montmorency]

Another 'D'oh' moment: Why wouldn't AT mines be worth their weight if IEDs are?