EPTRusso-Ukrainian War Thread - Page 155
| Forum Index > General Forum |
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On July 01 2022 22:26 Sermokala wrote: Battleships and battle cruisers still exist in your own navy and the us navy. they can be used for fire support to eliminate any advance into danzig let alone destroy the Russian enclave before being able to reach it. And again ground fighters based in sweden that intercept what's left of the Russian air force. Really now, where are these battleships and battlecruisers in the USN own Naval Vessel Register: https://www.nvr.navy.mil/NVRSHIPS/ACTIVEINCOMMISSION.HTML? There are no battlecruisers (not "battle cruisers"!) in the Royal Navy anymore either: https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/the-equipment/ships Also Danzig hasn't existed for over 70 years, having been renamed after WW2. It's like you confused some alt historical fanfic for reality. Battleships aren't going to fire support anything against a peer opponent seeing as any anti-ship missile outranges these non-existant battleship and what does Gdansk have to do with anything with your utterly crazy notion that battleships and battlecruisers exist in the USN and Royal Navy? At this point I can only imagine you can't admit you are wrong about something or you have your own personal definiton that goes against multi-billion dollar national organisations with tens of thousands of employees and centuries of heritage which is pretty much being utterly deranged. Where are you even getting your "military understanding" from? I suggest you stop reading/watching it. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
| ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On July 02 2022 00:55 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Really now, where are these battleships and battlecruisers in the USN own Naval Vessel Register: https://www.nvr.navy.mil/NVRSHIPS/ACTIVEINCOMMISSION.HTML? There are no battlecruisers (not "battle cruisers"!) in the Royal Navy anymore either: https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/the-equipment/ships Also Danzig hasn't existed for over 70 years, having been renamed after WW2. It's like you confused some alt historical fanfic for reality. Battleships aren't going to fire support anything against a peer opponent seeing as any anti-ship missile outranges these non-existant battleship and what does Gdansk have to do with anything with your utterly crazy notion that battleships and battlecruisers exist in the USN and Royal Navy? At this point I can only imagine you can't admit you are wrong about something or you have your own personal definiton that goes against multi-billion dollar national organisations with tens of thousands of employees and centuries of heritage which is pretty much being utterly deranged. Where are you even getting your "military understanding" from? I suggest you stop reading/watching it. In regards to Danzig, that's wrong. Gdansk is Danzig, and is still called Danzig in german. Now, you can argue that just because a certain language calls a city something doesn't mean it exists, but by that measure, you also would need to argue that Cologne doesn't exist. And has never existed. The city is called Köln, or Koeln if you don't have umlauts available, not Cologne. Danzig still very much exists. To be fair, the last battleship in the US was decommissioned only relatively recently. They removed the last BB from the reserve list (their "Mothball fleet") in 2011 (USS Iowa). In regards to ground support, check the history of BB-63 (USS Missouri) and where it was in 1991, Operation Desert Storm, and what it did. The suggestion that a single Battleship (if they were still in service) shows up somewhere at the coast and lays fire is dishonest at best. A battleship, much like a carrier, is accompanied by plenty of support ships - including ships capable to take down anti ship missiles. Ignoring of course the fact that the USS Missouri had anti-missile weaponry itself (4x Phalanx CIWS). It also was armed with Harpoons for anti-ship combat. In fact, the Missouri had multiple anti-ship missiles launched against it - one of which was a dud that crashed, the other was intercepted by HMS Gloucester. In that timeframe the Missouri launched 28 Tomahawks , and fired almost 750 16" (406mm) rounds for, you guessed it, ground support. The USS Wisconsin (BB-64), also there, btw - and they delivered over one million pounds (weight) worth of ordnance to Iraqi land targets. I'm not getting into feasibility here, in regards to costs etc - but you certainly look somewhat cringe/lame ridiculing something that absolutely would, and indeed has worked perfectly fine. Of course if you're dishonestly assuming that the most modern thing on a battleship in 2020 would be "electricity", then sure. A BB straight from WW2 wouldn't do much good. In reality, they were modernised, carried dozens of Harpoons and Tomahawks, were armed with countermeasures like Chaff, as well as CIWS systems, drone systems (RQ-2), modern radar and fire control systems, and capable of electronic warfare. In fact, with the money that was wasted on the Zumwalt class, you could've kept half the Iowa class ships in service for the next two decades. In regards to military understanding, you clearly don't have it, either. And before you come back with the "yeah but too expensive" or whatever: bottle it. Your argument was that they can't do it because modern weaponry would outrange them (which also is factually incorrect). It doesn't matter if it's a "near-peer" opponent, anti-ship missiles are widespread - ask the Moskva. Or indeed the Missouri that was shot at by Iraqi anti-ship missiles. | ||
|
r00ty
Germany1028 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On July 02 2022 22:18 m4ini wrote: In regards to Danzig, that's wrong. Gdansk is Danzig, and is still called Danzig in german. Now, you can argue that just because a certain language calls a city something doesn't mean it exists, but by that measure, you also would need to argue that Cologne doesn't exist. And has never existed. The city is called Köln, or Koeln if you don't have umlauts available, not Cologne. Danzig still very much exists. To be fair, the last battleship in the US was decommissioned only relatively recently. They removed the last BB from the reserve list (their "Mothball fleet") in 2011 (USS Iowa). In regards to ground support, check the history of BB-63 (USS Missouri) and where it was in 1991, Operation Desert Storm, and what it did. The suggestion that a single Battleship (if they were still in service) shows up somewhere at the coast and lays fire is dishonest at best. A battleship, much like a carrier, is accompanied by plenty of support ships - including ships capable to take down anti ship missiles. Ignoring of course the fact that the USS Missouri had anti-missile weaponry itself (4x Phalanx CIWS). It also was armed with Harpoons for anti-ship combat. In fact, the Missouri had multiple anti-ship missiles launched against it - one of which was a dud that crashed, the other was intercepted by HMS Gloucester. In that timeframe the Missouri launched 28 Tomahawks , and fired almost 750 16" (406mm) rounds for, you guessed it, ground support. The USS Wisconsin (BB-64), also there, btw - and they delivered over one million pounds (weight) worth of ordnance to Iraqi land targets. I'm not getting into feasibility here, in regards to costs etc - but you certainly look somewhat cringe/lame ridiculing something that absolutely would, and indeed has worked perfectly fine. Of course if you're dishonestly assuming that the most modern thing on a battleship in 2020 would be "electricity", then sure. A BB straight from WW2 wouldn't do much good. In reality, they were modernised, carried dozens of Harpoons and Tomahawks, were armed with countermeasures like Chaff, as well as CIWS systems, drone systems (RQ-2), modern radar and fire control systems, and capable of electronic warfare. In fact, with the money that was wasted on the Zumwalt class, you could've kept half the Iowa class ships in service for the next two decades. In regards to military understanding, you clearly don't have it, either. And before you come back with the "yeah but too expensive" or whatever: bottle it. Your argument was that they can't do it because modern weaponry would outrange them (which also is factually incorrect). It doesn't matter if it's a "near-peer" opponent, anti-ship missiles are widespread - ask the Moskva. Or indeed the Missouri that was shot at by Iraqi anti-ship missiles. The history of BB-63 is irrelevant as it is a museum ship and is no longer exists as a naval ship. Are you really arguing that Battleships and battlecruiser truly exist in any navy and "swamping the baltic sea" with these non-existent ships are going to meaningfully do anything when these facts you put out I am already aware of and further reinforces that they were never used against a near peer opponent in modern naval warfare. I never said a battleship operates alone, but yet it still remains true that Battleships and Battlecruisers don't exist anymore and haven't been relevant in naval warfare in a near peer conflict since WW2. As to tomahawks there are currently over 90 tomahawk capable ships, which can each indivudually carry over 90 tomahawks each. Phalanx has never been confirmed to successfully intercept a missile. I don't see the point of your pointless wank for the big gun battleships of a bygone era. You wouldn't call Instanbul as Constantinople if you want to be taken seriously, and so it is with Gdansk and Danzig. As to Gdansk, which I previously mentioned as existing, calling it Danzig is very much an indication of using dubious online sources, as much as Sermokola's and yours alternative reality insistence that battleships and battlecruisers are in the USN and Royal Navy. Now that is truly cringe, as you put it. It's amazing how a simple assertation that battleships and battlecruisers don't exist anymore and therefore you can't swamp the baltic sea with these non-existant ship can even be an argument. | ||
|
thePunGun
598 Posts
Edit: I know this might have come across as harsh, but considering the seriousness of the topic I get easily annoyed when every other post gets of track. But don't mind me, I might just be a too easily annoyed lurker. xD | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4691 Posts
| ||
|
Ardias
Russian Federation605 Posts
On July 03 2022 16:29 Silvanel wrote: Well, Ukrainians don't want places in their country (cities, rivers, etc.) called by their Russian names rather than Ukrainian, as this signals support for Russia/take over. The problem is - at least some of those places names in other languages are derived from Russian versions rather than Ukrainian. Which makes this a complicated issue. They were working on that a lot, by either demanding and persuading state authorities and media in Western countries to change spelling and pronunciation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KyivNotKiev Or simply changing the city names (Dnipro was previously called Dnipropetrovsk, Bakhmut was Artemvosk etc.) | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6266 Posts
As I type this fighting is still ongoing for Belogorovka, with most Ukrainian forces already pushed out of the town. Belgorovka will mark the end of operations in the Severodonetsk-Lisichansk cluster (population 350,000) and the entire territory of Lugansk Oblast will effectively then be under the control of the Lugansk Peoples Republic. ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/EFaMQ6Y.jpg) This is from a Finish map for visualization purposes, but they don't show Ukrainian forces still left in the western part of the town. With Lisichansk over the next phase will be the heartland of the anti-Maidan protests of 2014, the lines Siversk-Bahmut, and Slavyansk-Kramatorsk-Konstantinovka, which is the last 'good' defensive line that can be held before Pavlograd. It will take a few weeks to get the bridges in Lisichansk up and running again so where and how this push will go is up in the air. Siversk will be very difficult to defend compared to Lisichansk-Severodonetsk [Update] Videos of Russians forces raising banners over administrative buildings in Belogorovka coming in, apparently the same group from that pontoon crossing a month or so ago | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4691 Posts
| ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5276 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
On July 04 2022 02:36 xM(Z wrote: what's the chance belorussians enter the war and go for Kyiv region?. Effectively zero. Besides the political question, the army of Belarus is not ready for an active war. | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6266 Posts
On July 04 2022 01:57 Silvanel wrote: Since Russians achieved a breakthrough at Popasna, the fall of Lisiczańsk was just a question of time. Let's see what happens now. Many commentators think, that they used so many resources for this push, that they won't be able to advance into/past Słowiańsk/Kramatorsk for a very long time. They will likely rotate some forces towards Chersoń since they are at risk of losing that city. It's been quite interesting to see the change of Russian tactics since they proclaimed their phase 2 a few months ago now. While the first days where chaos, fighting in depth without having time to secure supply lines or their rear. They have generally shifted away from their conventional BTG formations with a focus on smaller, highly mobile groups and heavy use of artillery. The Ukrainian army hasn't been able to adapt to this, and this was obvious with the Lisichansk pocket. A very long front line with short supply routes for Russian forces and fixed Ukrainian garrisons surrounded on three sides. Pouring men and heavy weapons into the pocket did delay the fall but it must have been hell for the defenders in there, there were a series of articles in Western media outlets about how the government forces while having similar troop numbers were outgunned 7:1 by the Russians. The 1000 losses a day articles being only three weeks ago. Reading reports from the Russian front lines they were told to either not advance, or advance very slowly, shell-shell-shell, scout with a drone, shell some more, shell once again for good measure, then advance a few hundred meters. With very little 'close' combat. All the time units were being rotated in and out of Russia for resting and giving new units experience. Again, I cannot begin to imagine what the defenders there had to go through. Especially the ones that spent weeks defending Zolote with heavy losses, had to retreat to Lisichansk under helicopter patrol fire and who knows what else... and not even a week later the same thing to Seversk. Hats off to those guys that did their job professionally and fought bravely, what kind of condition they are in to stay at the front lines... I guess we will see in the next week | ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
| ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4691 Posts
| ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
On July 05 2022 03:51 Silvanel wrote: I answered this question a few posts up: If Russians are going to capture Donbass, I don't think this going to happen quickly. Got it, didn't see that | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
On July 05 2022 03:51 Silvanel wrote: I answered this question a few posts up: If Russians are going to capture Donbass, I don't think this going to happen quickly. In fact, the reason why this question was asked is that it was answered a long time ago. Either UA gets the support and training needed to launch a counteroffensive or it doesn't. Only time will tell. Nothing of real substance will happen for a while. Sure, a town will change hands here or there. But the scale is minuscule now. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
| ||
