|
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. |
On February 19 2023 03:05 warding wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2023 02:34 mahrgell wrote:On February 19 2023 02:24 warding wrote:On February 19 2023 02:03 Sent. wrote: Turkey and France will probably remain stronger. I'm sure they have their own investments. According to Wikipedia, France has 118k active personnel and 222 Leclercs (+180 in storage). Poland is set to increase to 250k personnel and has ordered 366 Abrams and 1000 K2. https://twitter.com/d_foubert/status/1626588911685484547?s=20Don't think Turkey qualifies as a European land army. Then look at Greece if you don't count Turkey. Also taking a paper tank army, that is to be delivered over the next 2 decades and comparing it to the actual army is quite a weird comparison... Happy to be pointed toward any data indicating other European countries planning to scale at a similar pace. Which is arguably what we should all be doing. Greece has a lot of very old ones and no chance to keep up with a Poland growing economically and spending 3+% in its military. @Manitou to what extent to you think knowledge and experience that Ukrainians are accumulating with this was will spillover westwards? Militaries tend to become complacent over time but there's nothing like an existential threat next door as an incentive. (Speaking of peacetime complacency, Portugal has 26k personnel in the armed forces and a whopping 110 Generals in active duty+90 in reserve).
Knowledge and experience will definitely spill over to the West in general. After all this is the best documented war so far, gotta wait until it ends and more things become clear because of all the disinformation now, but the amount of available footage and stuff is staggering compared to previous conflicts.
NATO training is pretty good and up-to-date overall because USA is almost always involved in some conflicts and there are numerous missions involving other members too, they all need to have similar training to be able to operate together. The biggest things that will be learned from this war will be how to handle massive conflicts between two large nations (as opposed to largest military in the world invading some 3rd world country or fighting guerillas on the other side of the globe for example). Ukrainians also did some pretty innovative stuff with their artillery management systems and drones, those will definitely have a big impact on potential future research and development within armies across the world.
I think the biggest lessons come in the form of preparedness really. Making sure your stocked supplies are usable, having procedures for quickly ramping up production/maintenance, securing your power grids and other key infrastructure...
|
Zurich15355 Posts
I mean you can be 100% certain that every military in the world is studying the mass use of commercial drones in Ukraine alone.
|
commercial drones only look this good because both sides have no air force. If the us would fight russia they would bomb them to submission with missiles and aircraft and stealth bombers and drones look puny in comparision.
Then they would use a few thousand tanks to roll over the russian lines. Same as desert storm.
No lessons needed to beat artillery ww1 russia strategy.
US would also use thousands of high tech drones also of course for extra firepower nowadays
|
US couldn't bomb into submission little Vietnam and lost almost 4000 planes in the process. I wouldn't be so sure about them succeeding against Russia, despite all its flaws.
|
On February 19 2023 17:19 sertas wrote: commercial drones only look this good because both sides have no air force. If the us would fight russia they would bomb them to submission with missiles and aircraft and stealth bombers and drones look puny in comparision.
Then they would use a few thousand tanks to roll over the russian lines. Same as desert storm.
No lessons needed to beat artillery ww1 russia strategy.
US would also use thousands of high tech drones also of course for extra firepower nowadays The reason why there are no strategic bombers and bomber aircraft working the front lines is because of the massive amounts of Soviet era anti-air defense left in Ukraine after the Soviet Union was dissolved. The Soviets couldn't keep up with the expensive cost of developing and building high tech aircraft and based their doctrine around World leading air defense (which is much cheaper). The Russian air force was extremally potent in the fight against ISIS and Al Qaida in Syria where (Jihadi) anti-air was basically all hand-held. But Soviet air defense, designed for dealing with advanced NATO planes is even more dangerous for the Russian air force. No doubt about that.
NATO doctrine revolves around air superiority and when you take that away don't think you wont end up in a trench along with the Kiev controlled forces. And when you end up in a trench getting shelled every 30 seconds superior drone and anti-drone tech is what you want, along with artillery.
|
On February 19 2023 18:04 Silvanel wrote: US couldn't bomb into submission little Vietnam and lost almost 4000 planes in the process. I wouldn't be so sure about them succeeding against Russia, despite all its flaws. the US did bomb them into signing a peace deal to deliniate a north and south vietnam. That was also 50 years ago against a country with a lot of jungles. Russia uses roads that we can watch useing satellites.
the US wouldn't due to nukes but its really silly to compare 1970's vietnam to 2023 Russia.
|
Michael Kofman on the new Russian offensive, if that is what it is. Basically all confusion.
+ Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/KofmanMichael/status/1627309431300956161
|
Croatia9522 Posts
This is absurd. There's really no need to post every single tweet from a twitter thread in here.
You can just link to the first tweet and provide a TLDR.
|
The whole concept of twitter threads drives me nuts. If you intentionally wanted to have the least readable way of sharing long text over the internet you couldn't top that. Those likes and views numbers auto-updating under each part is like trying to read something while having mosquitoes phase in and out every 2 seconds.
|
Poland has backed Estonia's idea of a coalition of European countries to produce ammo for Ukraine. I know Germany announced that they will start producing anti-aircraft ammo for Ukraine, though I don't think it is part of said coalition. So right now it looks like it is only Estonia, and Poland right now.
Poland has backed Estonia's idea to form a coalition of countries that would provide ammunition for Ukraine, the Polish prime minister, Mateusz Morawiecki, has said.
Morawiecki and the Polish president, Andrzej Duda, attended the Munich Security Conference on Friday and Saturday.
Morawiecki said he had talked to the European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, about the initiative.
"We've talked with President von der Leyen about ammunition production projects," he said. "The issue was raised at the recent European Council meeting in Brussels, but some countries, and I don't want to point fingers, did not react positively to that."
He said he was pleased that von der Leyen was interested in the idea, calling her "an advocate of support for Ukraine.
"At the same time we've been building a coalition of countries - and I've talked about it with the Estonian prime minister, because she's been raising the issue - that would be ready to manufacture ammunition together, to finance or co-finance the production of as much ammunition as possible," Morawiecki said, adding that shortages of ammunition were currently the main problem for Ukraine.
At the European Council meeting "only a few" EU leaders supported the initiative, he said. "Today more and more and countries agree to do that," he added, explaining that about half of EU member states supported the scheme.
At the Council meeting on February 9, Estonia called for a EUR 4 billion investment in a million rounds of ammunition that Ukraine needed to fend of the Russian invasion.
Source
edit: Second part of the Ukrainian POV fight has been released. They both survived, you can see the Russian APC(?) burning from the RPG he fired in the first part.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
I'm seeing a bunch of speculation that President Biden just arrived in Kyiv. Incredible stuff
Just got confirmed. I don't know what he's going to announce, if anything, but I think it could be fighter jets
|
Would make no sense if they promised to deliver F-16s weeks after very reluctantly agreeing to send Abrams. I doubt he's there to announce something special, it's just a gesture of support similar to previous visits of European leaders.
|
On February 20 2023 18:59 Sent. wrote: Would make no sense if they promised to deliver F-16s weeks after very reluctantly agreeing to send Abrams. I doubt he's there to announce something special, it's just a gesture of support similar to previous visits of European leaders. Good point. My thought was that since Biden's stated that US/Western support could dwindle soon, he might announce more aid now in case it won't be able to be sent later
|
On February 19 2023 19:00 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2023 17:19 sertas wrote: commercial drones only look this good because both sides have no air force. If the us would fight russia they would bomb them to submission with missiles and aircraft and stealth bombers and drones look puny in comparision.
Then they would use a few thousand tanks to roll over the russian lines. Same as desert storm.
No lessons needed to beat artillery ww1 russia strategy.
US would also use thousands of high tech drones also of course for extra firepower nowadays The reason why there are no strategic bombers and bomber aircraft working the front lines is because of the massive amounts of Soviet era anti-air defense left in Ukraine after the Soviet Union was dissolved. The Soviets couldn't keep up with the expensive cost of developing and building high tech aircraft and based their doctrine around World leading air defense (which is much cheaper). The Russian air force was extremally potent in the fight against ISIS and Al Qaida in Syria where (Jihadi) anti-air was basically all hand-held. But Soviet air defense, designed for dealing with advanced NATO planes is even more dangerous for the Russian air force. No doubt about that. NATO doctrine revolves around air superiority and when you take that away don't think you wont end up in a trench along with the Kiev controlled forces. And when you end up in a trench getting shelled every 30 seconds superior drone and anti-drone tech is what you want, along with artillery.
I think with two somewhat modern countries fighting a war on about equal footing there would just be a fuckton of long rangeartillery on either side and everything in between for like 150 km would be pretty much dead space. Drones don't even fly that far. Everything moving in the dead space bigger than a person would be picked up by satellites and shelled to oblivion
|
Zurich15355 Posts
"Somewhat modern?" Only the US has these capabilities. Russia and possibly China might have the "fuckton" of long range but aren't even close in terms satellite reconnaissance capabilities.
What we are seeing live is what war between any modern military other than the US' looks like.
|
On February 20 2023 19:20 Harris1st wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2023 19:00 zeo wrote:On February 19 2023 17:19 sertas wrote: commercial drones only look this good because both sides have no air force. If the us would fight russia they would bomb them to submission with missiles and aircraft and stealth bombers and drones look puny in comparision.
Then they would use a few thousand tanks to roll over the russian lines. Same as desert storm.
No lessons needed to beat artillery ww1 russia strategy.
US would also use thousands of high tech drones also of course for extra firepower nowadays The reason why there are no strategic bombers and bomber aircraft working the front lines is because of the massive amounts of Soviet era anti-air defense left in Ukraine after the Soviet Union was dissolved. The Soviets couldn't keep up with the expensive cost of developing and building high tech aircraft and based their doctrine around World leading air defense (which is much cheaper). The Russian air force was extremally potent in the fight against ISIS and Al Qaida in Syria where (Jihadi) anti-air was basically all hand-held. But Soviet air defense, designed for dealing with advanced NATO planes is even more dangerous for the Russian air force. No doubt about that. NATO doctrine revolves around air superiority and when you take that away don't think you wont end up in a trench along with the Kiev controlled forces. And when you end up in a trench getting shelled every 30 seconds superior drone and anti-drone tech is what you want, along with artillery. I think with two somewhat modern countries fighting a war on about equal footing there would just be a fuckton of long rangeartillery on either side and everything in between for like 150 km would be pretty much dead space. Drones don't even fly that far. Everything moving in the dead space bigger than a person would be picked up by satellites and shelled to oblivion
I would like to point out that Predator has a range of 1200km... And yeah, the current warfare seems to be heavily reliant on strong alpha strike and if that fails then it devolves into artillery fights and trenches until one side can get air superiority.
|
On February 20 2023 20:32 zatic wrote: "Somewhat modern?" Only the US has these capabilities. Russia and possibly China might have the "fuckton" of long range but aren't even close in terms satellite reconnaissance capabilities.
What we are seeing live is what war between any modern military other than the US' looks like.
I was under the impression that every NATO member has access to long range artillery + Russia + Asian countries. I could be wrong here.
On February 20 2023 20:51 Manit0u wrote: I would like to point out that Predator has a range of 1200km... And yeah, the current warfare seems to be heavily reliant on strong alpha strike and if that fails then it devolves into artillery fights and trenches until one side can get air superiority.
I just read the Shahed kamikaze drones also have like 2.500 km range. I stand corrected. I thought with that kind of payload their range would be much more limited like the Bayraktar drones (Turkish drone)
I guess that future wars are all about who can shot down/ hack/ disable the satellites of the others first since information is about the biggest factor (beside nukes probably) in warfare
|
Biden secretly crossed into Ukraine to meet with Zelensky etc. Right after the White House, yesterday, told Ukraine to prepare for a new Russian offensive.
Despite claims from the White House for Biden having “no plans” to cross into Ukraine during his trip to Poland, plans to cross the Polish-Ukraine border began more than a month ago, after Biden told staffers he wanted a public display to show solidarity between the United States and embattled Ukraine as it enters its second year of war. Politically, this trip “needed to happen,” a senior White House official tells Rolling Stone. Over the past year, First Lady Jill Biden, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, and others in the U.S. government have made the trip to the war-torn country while the president himself had not — until now.
On Monday, however, Biden strolled the streets of downtown Kyiv, with Zelensky at his side, and announced additional weapons deliveries.
Biden was presented with an array of plans for this Ukraine trip, says the senior White House official with direct knowledge of the matter. The official was not authorized to speak on the record. One idea called for a meeting between Biden and Zelensky at an undisclosed location at the Polish-Ukrainian border. Another sought to hold the meeting in Lviv, a Western Ukrainian city that has been hit by Russian airstrikes several times since the war began but remains relatively safe when compared to the heavy fighting on the Eastern front.
Given the obvious fact that Ukraine is an active battlefield, both the Secret Service and the Defense Department had security objections to some of the plans presented. The Secret Service did not respond to Rolling Stone’s requests for comment, and the Defense Department referred questions to the White House.
The senior White House official says the concerns stemmed from the “unpredictability of the environment and the reduced security footprint required to support the movement of the president.”
Ultimately, Biden selected Kyiv, a city that stands as a symbolic gesture of Ukraine’s resolve after Russian forces tried and failed to capture the capital city early in the war last year.
Source
|
I've been keeping up with what's going on in Bakhmut. General overview is that Russian forces are advancing in the north and being pushed back in the south and east. Encirclement at this point doesn't seem likely. With what's going on with Wagner, Bakhmut might not fall
|
Wagner founder stating that Russian forces will not give Wagner ammunition, nor backup in fighting. Which isn't new as several fights have erupted between the two camps. Guess Prigozhin flew too close to the sun politically and is now paying the price, and purposely being weakened to prevent him becoming a bigger threat.
In a seven-minute long audio message published on Monday by his press service, an apparently angry and emotional Prigozhin said he was required to "apologize and obey" in order to secure ammunition for his troops.
Speaking at times with a raised voice and occasionally swearing, he said: "I'm unable to solve this problem despite all my connections and contacts."
Prigozhin said Russia's military production was now sufficient to supply the forces fighting at the front, and that the supply difficulties his fighters were experiencing were the result of conscious decisions.
"Those who interfere with us trying to win this war are absolutely, directly working for the enemy," he said.
Since the outbreak of the conflict, Prigozhin has publicly feuded with generals and Kremlin officials, accusing them of insufficient zeal in prosecuting the campaign against Kyiv. He has reserved his harshest criticism for Russia's Defence Ministry, which he has accused of trying to take credit for Wagner's achievements on the battlefield.
In his audio message, Prigozhin said the unspecified individuals he blamed for the shortage of ammunition were "eating breakfast, lunch and dinner off golden plates" and sending their relatives on holiday to Dubai, a popular destination for the Russian elite.
The White House said last week that the Wagner Group had suffered more than 30,000 casualties since Russia's invasion of Ukraine, with about 9,000 of those killed in action. Some 90% of those killed in Ukraine since December were convicts, it said, a reference to Prigozhin's recruitment of prisoners to fight.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|