trymer
Joined: November 2018
Posts: 1,504
|
Post by trymer on Mar 12, 2023 14:47:07 GMT
The war grinds on, I think that if Trump would have been President the war probably wouldnt have started and even if it had he would have sorted it out by now. Maybe the whole of eastern Ukraine should be made into a missile free zone with a UN presence, USA didnt want Soviet missiles in Cuba and Russia doent want NATO missiles on its borders either. The longer this war goes on the more chance of it spreading and the more damage it does to the World economy and people in other countries especially poor countries. I am not advocating appeasement but the UN needs more clout and probably better/stronger leadership to demand an end to hostilities. You don't put 'missiles' near the border. How can you "demand an end to hostilities"? Do you allow Russia to hold Ukrainian territory? Isn't that rewarding naked aggression? The UN is a busted flush. They cannot demand anything as Russia will just veto it! With eastern Ukraine as a demilitarized zone missiles would be further from Russia's borders. As I said the UN needs more clout,then they could demand an end to hostilities,if Trump was President that would have happened,he would have spoken to Putin as he did before (he also spoke to the North Korean leader) Trump was the 'President of peace' he said that "wars are bad for business" and the World was quite peaceful with him in the White House. Soon a lot of people in the World will oppose this war and that will force their leaders to stop supporting either side, this is probably why Russia seem to want a long war.
|
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,166
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Mar 12, 2023 15:22:01 GMT
The war grinds on, I think that if Trump would have been President the war probably wouldnt have started and even if it had he would have sorted it out by now. Maybe the whole of eastern Ukraine should be made into a missile free zone with a UN presence, USA didnt want Soviet missiles in Cuba and Russia doent want NATO missiles on its borders either. The longer this war goes on the more chance of it spreading and the more damage it does to the World economy and people in other countries especially poor countries. I am not advocating appeasement but the UN needs more clout and probably better/stronger leadership to demand an end to hostilities. You don't put 'missiles' near the border. How can you "demand an end to hostilities"? Do you allow Russia to hold Ukrainian territory? Isn't that rewarding naked aggression? The UN is a busted flush. They cannot demand anything as Russia will just veto it! Agreed. The West and NATO appeased Russia and allowed them to take Crimea. That's why Putin thought the West would do nothing. The United Nations has sadly woken up to the fact that it has allowed itself to become an anti-West talking shop. When it allowed Saudi and others to head up human rights wings of the UN, they showed that they weren't bothered about what was right but being 'fair' so all sides could take a turn. Fairness is not human rights. Saudi doesn't care about rights, it believes in male dominance for traditional and religious purposes. Russia, China, etc don't care about the freedoms and rights that the West has enjoyed in the past [some being removed by Trumpism and the Bannon crew], it's about control and India is moving in that direction as are others.
|
|
trymer
Joined: November 2018
Posts: 1,504
|
Post by trymer on Mar 14, 2023 20:36:16 GMT
I have been reading that support for the Ukraine war is gradually declining in USA and Europe, it seems that some Republicans in USA are unhappy about continuing to supply weapons in the future. I wonder if todays drone incident was set up by American forces to cause indignation at home and bolster support for the war.
I still think that if Russia is able to continue the war for a long time there is the possibility of a Saigon 76 type debacle in Ukraine,wouldnt Russia love flooding Europe with millions of refugees ?
I also saw a story today that the Wagner group in Africa are organising refugees to travel into Europe via Italy,no doubt to put pressure on European governments.
|
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 4,401
|
Ukraine
Mar 14, 2023 20:43:29 GMT
via mobile
Post by oldie on Mar 14, 2023 20:43:29 GMT
I have been reading that support for the Ukraine war is gradually declining in USA and Europe, it seems that some Republicans in USA are unhappy about continuing to supply weapons in the future. I wonder if todays drone incident was set up by American forces to cause indignation at home and bolster support for the war. I still think that if Russia is able to continue the war for a long time there is the possibility of a Saigon 76 type debacle in Ukraine,wouldnt Russia love flooding Europe with millions of refugees ? I also saw a story today that the Wagner group in Africa are organising refugees to travel into Europe via Italy,no doubt to put pressure on European governments. Any other conspiracy theories? Or do you have any evidence you might share to back up your assertions?
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Mar 15, 2023 10:01:16 GMT
I have been reading that support for the Ukraine war is gradually declining in USA and Europe, it seems that some Republicans in USA are unhappy about continuing to supply weapons in the future. I wonder if todays drone incident was set up by American forces to cause indignation at home and bolster support for the war. I still think that if Russia is able to continue the war for a long time there is the possibility of a Saigon 76 type debacle in Ukraine,wouldnt Russia love flooding Europe with millions of refugees ? I also saw a story today that the Wagner group in Africa are organising refugees to travel into Europe via Italy,no doubt to put pressure on European governments. So far, the US has spent about 3% of it's entire defence budget on Ukraine. What they have achieved, and will continue to do so, is the degradation of the Russian forces. I think the US consider that to be a good deal. Most of the equipment given to Ukraine has been stuff in storage, or old systems. The US have not given very much of the latest equipment.
|
|
|
Ukraine
Mar 15, 2023 15:08:32 GMT
via mobile
Post by lostinspace on Mar 15, 2023 15:08:32 GMT
I have been reading that support for the Ukraine war is gradually declining in USA and Europe, it seems that some Republicans in USA are unhappy about continuing to supply weapons in the future. I wonder if todays drone incident was set up by American forces to cause indignation at home and bolster support for the war. I still think that if Russia is able to continue the war for a long time there is the possibility of a Saigon 76 type debacle in Ukraine,wouldnt Russia love flooding Europe with millions of refugees ? I also saw a story today that the Wagner group in Africa are organising refugees to travel into Europe via Italy,no doubt to put pressure on European governments. So far, the US has spent about 3% of it's entire defence budget on Ukraine. What they have achieved, and will continue to do so, is the degradation of the Russian forces. I think the US consider that to be a good deal. Most of the equipment given to Ukraine has been stuff in storage, or old systems. The US have not given very much of the latest equipment. I notice the Republican presidential candidate De Santis has waded in with the " it's not our war theory ..just a territorial spat !!! ..ala. Trump,who I believe would be licking Spewtins rear end had he still been in the White House, and Europe would more likely be on a war red alert
|
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 4,401
|
Ukraine
Mar 15, 2023 16:39:40 GMT
via mobile
Post by oldie on Mar 15, 2023 16:39:40 GMT
So far, the US has spent about 3% of it's entire defence budget on Ukraine. What they have achieved, and will continue to do so, is the degradation of the Russian forces. I think the US consider that to be a good deal. Most of the equipment given to Ukraine has been stuff in storage, or old systems. The US have not given very much of the latest equipment. I notice the Republican presidential candidate De Santis has waded in with the " it's not our war theory ..just a territorial spat !!! ..ala. Trump,who I believe would be licking Spewtins rear end had he still been in the White House, and Europe would more likely be on a war red alert Good old Republicans, you gotta love em. Do, say, anything for power, but thick as two short planks. Ring any bells?
|
|
trymer
Joined: November 2018
Posts: 1,504
|
Post by trymer on Mar 15, 2023 19:00:21 GMT
So far, the US has spent about 3% of it's entire defence budget on Ukraine. What they have achieved, and will continue to do so, is the degradation of the Russian forces. I think the US consider that to be a good deal. Most of the equipment given to Ukraine has been stuff in storage, or old systems. The US have not given very much of the latest equipment. I notice the Republican presidential candidate De Santis has waded in with the " it's not our war theory ..just a territorial spat !!! ..ala. Trump,who I believe would be licking Spewtins rear end had he still been in the White House, and Europe would more likely be on a war red alert The polls in the USA show support for the war gradually declining,De Santis is probably trying to take advantage of that. The Biden administration are committed to Ukraine perhaps because the Biden family have interests in Ukraine (like the Corleone family in New York ) but if the electorate dont support that stance what then ? as I said a potential Saigon. After the 2024 election the USA could take an 'America first' stance, what would happen to NATO then ?
|
|
trymer
Joined: November 2018
Posts: 1,504
|
Post by trymer on Mar 15, 2023 19:08:44 GMT
I have been reading that support for the Ukraine war is gradually declining in USA and Europe, it seems that some Republicans in USA are unhappy about continuing to supply weapons in the future. I wonder if todays drone incident was set up by American forces to cause indignation at home and bolster support for the war. I still think that if Russia is able to continue the war for a long time there is the possibility of a Saigon 76 type debacle in Ukraine,wouldnt Russia love flooding Europe with millions of refugees ? I also saw a story today that the Wagner group in Africa are organising refugees to travel into Europe via Italy,no doubt to put pressure on European governments. So far, the US has spent about 3% of it's entire defence budget on Ukraine. What they have achieved, and will continue to do so, is the degradation of the Russian forces. I think the US consider that to be a good deal. Most of the equipment given to Ukraine has been stuff in storage, or old systems. The US have not given very much of the latest equipment. I have read that the Americans want the Ukranians to start an offensive, media here making great play of the Leopard 2 tanks now on their way (some have arrived) but the Russians have the Kornet anti tank missile system and some people think that tanks are only of limited use now with modern anti tank missiles. Maybe the Russians are using Bakhmut as a Verdun type battle of attrition where the Russians are prepared to lose men as long as the Ukrainians lose the same amount which they cant afford to do.
|
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 4,401
|
Post by oldie on Mar 15, 2023 19:10:28 GMT
So far, the US has spent about 3% of it's entire defence budget on Ukraine. What they have achieved, and will continue to do so, is the degradation of the Russian forces. I think the US consider that to be a good deal. Most of the equipment given to Ukraine has been stuff in storage, or old systems. The US have not given very much of the latest equipment. I have read that the Americans want the Ukranians to start an offensive, media here making great play of the Leopard 2 tanks now on their way (some have arrived) but the Russians have the Kornet anti tank missile system and some people think that tanks are only of limited use now with modern anti tank missiles. Maybe the Russians are using Bakhmut as a Verdun type battle of attrition where the Russians are prepared to lose men as long as the Ukrainians lose the same amount which they cant afford to do. Conclusion?
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Mar 16, 2023 12:29:48 GMT
So far, the US has spent about 3% of it's entire defence budget on Ukraine. What they have achieved, and will continue to do so, is the degradation of the Russian forces. I think the US consider that to be a good deal. Most of the equipment given to Ukraine has been stuff in storage, or old systems. The US have not given very much of the latest equipment. I have read that the Americans want the Ukranians to start an offensive, media here making great play of the Leopard 2 tanks now on their way (some have arrived) but the Russians have the Kornet anti tank missile system and some people think that tanks are only of limited use now with modern anti tank missiles. Maybe the Russians are using Bakhmut as a Verdun type battle of attrition where the Russians are prepared to lose men as long as the Ukrainians lose the same amount which they cant afford to do. "and some people think that tanks are only of limited use now with modern anti tank missiles." - Incorrect. If tanks are used as part of an all-arms solution then they are very effective. "Maybe the Russians are using Bakhmut as a Verdun type battle of attrition where the Russians are prepared to lose men as long as the Ukrainians lose the same amount which they cant afford to do." - reports I have seen indicate that the casualty rate is about 1:7 in favour of the Ukes in the Bakhmur area. Defenders usually take far less casualties than the attackers.
|
|
trymer
Joined: November 2018
Posts: 1,504
|
Post by trymer on Mar 16, 2023 14:40:05 GMT
I have read that the Americans want the Ukranians to start an offensive, media here making great play of the Leopard 2 tanks now on their way (some have arrived) but the Russians have the Kornet anti tank missile system and some people think that tanks are only of limited use now with modern anti tank missiles. Maybe the Russians are using Bakhmut as a Verdun type battle of attrition where the Russians are prepared to lose men as long as the Ukrainians lose the same amount which they cant afford to do. "and some people think that tanks are only of limited use now with modern anti tank missiles." - Incorrect. If tanks are used as part of an all-arms solution then they are very effective. Well Guderian specified tanks were to be used in all arms formations,however this was in the 1930s and the Boys anti tank rifle had a range of 500 yards,these Kornet missiles have a range of 8000 metres. The Kornet has disasbled Abrams tanks and the Israeli Merkava, with use of drones for recconaisance and advanced anti tank missile systems the tank will have a difficult future,Guderian explained in his first book how and why tanks came about but if he were alive now his next book might explain why tanks are no longer so important.
|
|
trymer
Joined: November 2018
Posts: 1,504
|
Post by trymer on Mar 16, 2023 14:46:10 GMT
I have read that the Americans want the Ukranians to start an offensive, media here making great play of the Leopard 2 tanks now on their way (some have arrived) but the Russians have the Kornet anti tank missile system and some people think that tanks are only of limited use now with modern anti tank missiles. Maybe the Russians are using Bakhmut as a Verdun type battle of attrition where the Russians are prepared to lose men as long as the Ukrainians lose the same amount which they cant afford to do. "Maybe the Russians are using Bakhmut as a Verdun type battle of attrition where the Russians are prepared to lose men as long as the Ukrainians lose the same amount which they cant afford to do." - reports I have seen indicate that the casualty rate is about 1:7 in favour of the Ukes in the Bakhmur area. Defenders usually take far less casualties than the attackers. I have also seen the 1 to 7 casualty figure,I doubt that it is true but even if it were the Russians are losing ex convicts and half trained conscripts,the Ukrainians are losing their front line troops,in other words the Russians can afford to take high casualties (they always have in their wars) the Ukranians cant. Have a look at the Overland campaign where Grant (not a clever general and a drunkard) lost many more casualties than his opponents but again his casualties were easily replaced the Confederates couldnt replace their's.
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Mar 16, 2023 16:21:54 GMT
"and some people think that tanks are only of limited use now with modern anti tank missiles." - Incorrect. If tanks are used as part of an all-arms solution then they are very effective. Well Guderian specified tanks were to be used in all arms formations,however this was in the 1930s and the Boys anti tank rifle had a range of 500 yards,these Kornet missiles have a range of 8000 metres. The Kornet has disasbled Abrams tanks and the Israeli Merkava, with use of drones for recconaisance and advanced anti tank missile systems the tank will have a difficult future,Guderian explained in his first book how and why tanks came about but if he were alive now his next book might explain why tanks are no longer so important. Think you'll find the Leopard 2 is not that worried about the Kornet. Range means nothing if it can't disable. How many Abrams have been disabled by a Kornet? Tanks are still important. Why do you think Ukraine were so desperate to get their hands on more?
|
|
trymer
Joined: November 2018
Posts: 1,504
|
Post by trymer on Mar 16, 2023 19:45:09 GMT
Well Guderian specified tanks were to be used in all arms formations,however this was in the 1930s and the Boys anti tank rifle had a range of 500 yards,these Kornet missiles have a range of 8000 metres. The Kornet has disasbled Abrams tanks and the Israeli Merkava, with use of drones for recconaisance and advanced anti tank missile systems the tank will have a difficult future,Guderian explained in his first book how and why tanks came about but if he were alive now his next book might explain why tanks are no longer so important. Think you'll find the Leopard 2 is not that worried about the Kornet. Range means nothing if it can't disable. How many Abrams have been disabled by a Kornet? Tanks are still important. Why do you think Ukraine were so desperate to get their hands on more? Well we might see how the Leopard 2 copes with Kornet. As for the range, I was trying to point out that infantry might be able to deal with AT rifles at 500 yards but at 8000 metres they cant deal with a system like Kornet. I think that the Iraqis with Kornet disabled a couple of Abrams but even that surprised me,Hezbollah have damaged several Israeli Merkova, tanks are vulnerable to IEDs too. Why do Ukraine want tanks ? I think that they just want more and more involvement from the West/Nato, first they want small arms,then tanks,then aircraft,then troops ? they even got some AMX RC10 from France today,what are they going to do with them ?
|
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,166
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Mar 17, 2023 9:25:10 GMT
I agree with Nobby re tanks from the point of view that Putin has run this war with mid 20th Century tactics from a time when tanks were important in battle. He is basically throwing young ill trained conscripts as cannon fodder into the front line and using the mercenaries of Wagner as the main forward thrust. He seems happy to lose thousands even hundreds of thousands in his vanity project. It will be interesting to see what happens when the flow of tanks, and as is being reported jets, arrive in Ukraine.
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Mar 17, 2023 10:12:49 GMT
Think you'll find the Leopard 2 is not that worried about the Kornet. Range means nothing if it can't disable. How many Abrams have been disabled by a Kornet? Tanks are still important. Why do you think Ukraine were so desperate to get their hands on more? Well we might see how the Leopard 2 copes with Kornet. As for the range, I was trying to point out that infantry might be able to deal with AT rifles at 500 yards but at 8000 metres they cant deal with a system like Kornet. I think that the Iraqis with Kornet disabled a couple of Abrams but even that surprised me,Hezbollah have damaged several Israeli Merkova, tanks are vulnerable to IEDs too. Why do Ukraine want tanks ? I think that they just want more and more involvement from the West/Nato, first they want small arms,then tanks,then aircraft,then troops ? they even got some AMX RC10 from France today,what are they going to do with them ? OK, let's get technical. The Kornet uses a Line-Of-Sight Beam Riding (LOSBR) for guidance. This means a laser beam has to be on the target for the missile to track and hit. The 8k range only works if you have an 8k line-of-sight. Pretty rare. It can also be difficult if the target is moving. It requires training to use correctly. Are the Russians trained properly in how to use it? What are the Ukes going to do with the AMX RC10? I'm pretty sure they'll use them to fire things that go bang. Why do Ukraine need tanks? They are fighting for their very survival. They'll accept any weapons systems they can get their hands on.
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Mar 17, 2023 10:21:06 GMT
Well we might see how the Leopard 2 copes with Kornet. As for the range, I was trying to point out that infantry might be able to deal with AT rifles at 500 yards but at 8000 metres they cant deal with a system like Kornet. I think that the Iraqis with Kornet disabled a couple of Abrams but even that surprised me,Hezbollah have damaged several Israeli Merkova, tanks are vulnerable to IEDs too. Why do Ukraine want tanks ? I think that they just want more and more involvement from the West/Nato, first they want small arms,then tanks,then aircraft,then troops ? they even got some AMX RC10 from France today,what are they going to do with them ? OK, let's get technical. The Kornet uses a Line-Of-Sight Beam Riding (LOSBR) for guidance. This means a laser beam has to be on the target for the missile to track and hit. The 8k range only works if you have an 8k line-of-sight. Pretty rare. It can also be difficult if the target is moving. It requires training to use correctly. Are the Russians trained properly in how to use it? What are the Ukes going to do with the AMX RC10? I'm pretty sure they'll use them to fire things that go bang. Why do Ukraine need tanks? They are fighting for their very survival. They'll accept any weapons systems they can get their hands on. One more thing. When fired, the two-man crew of the Kornet have to stay put until the missile hits. They have to track it onto the target with the laser. Have you ever heard of TROPHY? The second the Kornet is launched, TROPHY can detect it. It means that the two-man Kornet crew may well have incoming fire within seconds of the launch. It takes a brave man to stay put knowing that any moment he'll may be on the end of a big bangy thing. The further away you are from the target the longer you have to stay put. Classic rule of warfare: If the enemy are in range, then so are you!
|
|
trymer
Joined: November 2018
Posts: 1,504
|
Post by trymer on Mar 17, 2023 11:24:26 GMT
Well we might see how the Leopard 2 copes with Kornet. As for the range, I was trying to point out that infantry might be able to deal with AT rifles at 500 yards but at 8000 metres they cant deal with a system like Kornet. I think that the Iraqis with Kornet disabled a couple of Abrams but even that surprised me,Hezbollah have damaged several Israeli Merkova, tanks are vulnerable to IEDs too. Why do Ukraine want tanks ? I think that they just want more and more involvement from the West/Nato, first they want small arms,then tanks,then aircraft,then troops ? they even got some AMX RC10 from France today,what are they going to do with them ? OK, let's get technical. The Kornet uses a Line-Of-Sight Beam Riding (LOSBR) for guidance. This means a laser beam has to be on the target for the missile to track and hit. The 8k range only works if you have an 8k line-of-sight. Pretty rare. It can also be difficult if the target is moving. It requires training to use correctly. Are the Russians trained properly in how to use it? What are the Ukes going to do with the AMX RC10? I'm pretty sure they'll use them to fire things that go bang. Why do Ukraine need tanks? They are fighting for their very survival. They'll accept any weapons systems they can get their hands on. Well the Iraqi army and Hezbollah were trained to use Kornet. 8 Km is maximum range but there are some wide open spaces in Ukraine which the German tank destroyers used to good effect in WW2. If they try and use them off road in Ukranian mud the thing going bang will be an AMX RC10,sitting target stuck up to its axles, still the French military are replacing them with Jaguar so they probably need to get rid of the old AMX.
|
|
trymer
Joined: November 2018
Posts: 1,504
|
Post by trymer on Mar 17, 2023 11:40:34 GMT
OK, let's get technical. The Kornet uses a Line-Of-Sight Beam Riding (LOSBR) for guidance. This means a laser beam has to be on the target for the missile to track and hit. The 8k range only works if you have an 8k line-of-sight. Pretty rare. It can also be difficult if the target is moving. It requires training to use correctly. Are the Russians trained properly in how to use it? What are the Ukes going to do with the AMX RC10? I'm pretty sure they'll use them to fire things that go bang. Why do Ukraine need tanks? They are fighting for their very survival. They'll accept any weapons systems they can get their hands on. One more thing. When fired, the two-man crew of the Kornet have to stay put until the missile hits. They have to track it onto the target with the laser. Have you ever heard of TROPHY? The second the Kornet is launched, TROPHY can detect it. It means that the two-man Kornet crew may well have incoming fire within seconds of the launch. It takes a brave man to stay put knowing that any moment he'll may be on the end of a big bangy thing. The further away you are from the target the longer you have to stay put. Classic rule of warfare: If the enemy are in range, then so are you! I hadnt heard of TROPHY but I have had a very quick read and tbh it doesnt surprise me that counter measures are being introduced and upgraded constantly,the advances in technology are so fast. Reminiscent of the night fighter / night bomber development of WW2,radar,radar jamming,better radar that cant be jammed, other type of jamming,Window etc etc. AT is always dodgy,the Boys AT rifle let off a plume of smoke giving away firing position,PIAT needed nerves of steel,but being inside a tank when it gets hit isnt a good place to be,I worked with a bloke who used to clear them out after they were hit,not a pleasant job. As regards to being in range, I was reading up on anti tank destroyers recently,the German 88mm armed ones Hornisse etc could destroy most Russian tanks whilst staying out of the Russians range,they were very effective....in the southern Russian steppes and the wide open spaces.....of Ukraine. Although they look big and scary tanks are and always have been very vulnerable to effective and well sited anti tank weapons.
|
|