Russian invasion of Ukraine

[LongTimeLurker]

50 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

I've seen this mentioned before, but why does a tank need infantry cover? 

So somebody with -enko or -chuk at the end of his name can't get close enough with an NLAW or a Javelin to turn it into a pressure cooker?

[Sergeant Wilson]

2 minutes ago, LongTimeLurker said:

So somebody with -enko or -chuk at the end of his name can't get close enough with an NLAW or a Javelin to turn it into a pressure cooker?

But that sounds like you're saying the infantry on the tank side will frighten the enemy away. If that's true, why do you need a tank at all?

[Moomintroll]

13 minutes ago, Shadow Play said:

I’m happy to accept your assertions on the matter.  Like I said, you come across like you have a good knowledge of how western intelligence gathering works.  

He knows how, because everything he ever says works, no sorry, my little mistake, he is an utter fucking arsehole who pretends to be an authority on every single subject ever because he is a Qualified Historian.

[vikingTON]

6 minutes ago, Moomintroll said:

He knows how, because everything he ever says works, no sorry, my little mistake, he is an utter fucking arsehole who pretends to be an authority on every single subject ever because he is a Qualified Historian.

^^^ sobbing uncontrollably

[LongTimeLurker]

3 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

But that sounds like you're saying the infantry on the tank side will frighten the enemy away. If that's true, why do you need a tank at all?

Is it not still useful combined with an infantry advance for the shells it can fire to take out enemy strong points and armour that would make things difficult for infantry alone? Never been in one so don't claim to be an expert.

Argument seems to be that Russia units have been relying too much on trundling in a column of tanks and don't have enough infantry to prevent them from being sitting ducks by controlling the ground around the tank.

[Shadow Play]

7 minutes ago, Moomintroll said:

He knows how, because everything he ever says works, no sorry, my little mistake, he is an utter fucking arsehole who pretends to be an authority on every single subject ever because he is a Qualified Historian.

Are you suggesting he doesn’t know how western intelligence gathering works and what information they could and could not have gained from human sources?   He sounded so confident and so dismissive of any other narrative I just assumed he must have a great knowledge of the subject.  Have I been duped?

[ICTChris]

Thread on the impact of reinforcements and newly delivered equipment

https://twitter.com/phillipspobrien/status/1521920135040225283?s=21&t=5oac9lXIh05aBL9fyW_vFQ

[Boo Khaki]

1 hour ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

But that sounds like you're saying the infantry on the tank side will frighten the enemy away. If that's true, why do you need a tank at all?

You need infantry support because tanks struggle for vision, and especially in urban environments they are vulnerable to being flanked. They can't clear out buildings and keep them free of enemy, and they liable to drive into ambushes/onto booby traps without mobile infantry to scout and spot for them. Tanks are useful for direct assault, destroying enemy armour and dug in/fortified positions, but they can't reliably hold ground or defend themselves from enemy attacks in environments where there is plenty of cover and obstructed vision that would permit infantry to flank or surround them. They absolutely require their own infantry to prevent that.

It used to be that certain nations absolutely forbade tanks to enter urban areas under any circumstances they were so blind and vulnerable. Needs must, and it still used to happen, but even the modern, heavily armoured 70 ton behemoths are still enormously vulnerable to enemy infantry attacks in built-up areas. An RPG shot from above into the rear, or down on to the engine deck will disable most tanks, so it's not difficult for infantry to conceal themselves until they have an opportunity for a good shot, unless they are also being pressured by enemy infantry supporting the armour. Tank crews can't go into urban areas unless they are buttoned up. To do so would be suicidal, so they have the hatches closed and vision is limited to what you can see through vision blocks, periscopes, sights etc. You could be entirely alert and on your toes, and it would still be entirely feasible for enemy infantry to walk up right behind you, and for you to have no idea they were there thanks to your inability to spot them.

Because Russia appears to have a shortage of infantry supporting their AFV's, (it's debatable precisely why), it's for the above reasons that I think they are suffering vastly inflated rates of AFV losses over and above what they should be. It also makes it impossible to recover and repair your own damaged vehicles if the enemy controls the area with boots on the ground, and I also suspect that's the reason why so many Russian tanks are burning out to the point whereby they are nothing but useless scrap.

Edited May 4, 2022 by Boo Khaki

[Wee Bully]

43 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

I think @virginton is a school teacher. That might explain some of this. 

You missed “failed” from in front of “school teacher”. 

[Sergeant Wilson]

7 hours ago, Boo Khaki said:

You need infantry support because tanks struggle for vision, and especially in urban environments they are vulnerable to being flanked. They can't clear out buildings and keep them free of enemy, and they liable to drive into ambushes/onto booby traps without mobile infantry to scout and spot for them. Tanks are useful for direct assault, destroying enemy armour and dug in/fortified positions, but they can't reliably hold ground or defend themselves from enemy attacks in environments where there is plenty of cover and obstructed vision that would permit infantry to flank or surround them. They absolutely require their own infantry to prevent that.

It used to be that certain nations absolutely forbade tanks to enter urban areas under any circumstances they were so blind and vulnerable. Needs must, and it still used to happen, but even the modern, heavily armoured 70 ton behemoths are still enormously vulnerable to enemy infantry attacks in built-up areas. An RPG shot from above into the rear, or down on to the engine deck will disable most tanks, so it's not difficult for infantry to conceal themselves until they have an opportunity for a good shot, unless they are also being pressured by enemy infantry supporting the armour. Tank crews can't go into urban areas unless they are buttoned up. To do so would be suicidal, so they have the hatches closed and vision is limited to what you can see through vision blocks, periscopes, sights etc. You could be entirely alert and on your toes, and it would still be entirely feasible for enemy infantry to walk up right behind you, and for you to have no idea they were there thanks to your inability to spot them.

Because Russia appears to have a shortage of infantry supporting their AFV's, (it's debatable precisely why), it's for the above reasons that I think they are suffering vastly inflated rates of AFV losses over and above what they should be. It also makes it impossible to recover and repair your own damaged vehicles if the enemy controls the area with boots on the ground, and I also suspect that's the reason why so many Russian tanks are burning out to the point whereby they are nothing but useless scrap.

Well I'm very disappointed in tanks, I think they are rubbish.

[jimbaxters]

6 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

Well I'm very disappointed in tanks, I think they are rubbish.

Don't know. The Russian tanks are quite clever. Inside each one there is a smaller one, then a smaller one, then a smaller one...

[Ludo*1]

9 hours ago, Shadow Play said:

Are you suggesting he doesn’t know how western intelligence gathering works and what information they could and could not have gained from human sources?   He sounded so confident and so dismissive of any other narrative I just assumed he must have a great knowledge of the subject.  Have I been duped?

That's his shtick. He's an absolute fucking simpleton who's best ignored.

[Fullerene]

1 hour ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

Well I'm very disappointed in tanks, I think they are rubbish.

It is the same with aircraft carriers - can't go anywhere unless there are lots of little ships to watch your back.

[vikingTON]

9 hours ago, Wee Bully said:

You missed “failed” from in front of “school teacher”. 

Swing and a miss, yet again. You keep plugging away though champ.

[Detournement]

Why the rest of the world isn't jumping on the sanction Russia train.

[Stellaboz]

[Benjamin_Nevis]

Why the rest of the world isn't jumping on the sanction Russia train.

[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

[Jacksgranda]

17 hours ago, welshbairn said:

I think it might, but not till it trickles through to the majority or at least a sizeable minority that he's single handedly wrecking the economy and its military reputation for pretty much nothing and over a totally unnecessary war special operation. If he has to introduce conscription to replace the body bags coming home, that might start tilting the balance.

Get the nomenclature right, ffs...

[Detournement]

11 hours ago, ICTChris said:

Thread on the impact of reinforcements and newly delivered equipment

https://twitter.com/phillipspobrien/status/1521920135040225283?s=21&t=5oac9lXIh05aBL9fyW_vFQ

So for Ukraine newly delivered artillery is going to turn the war. However Russia's far superior artillery since the beginning of the war has had no positive impact. 

Being a mad right wing academic is the easiest life anyone can aspire to. 

[Detournement]

On 03/05/2022 at 16:30, Detournement said:

Ukraine will continue to fight until they run out of military age men then private military contractors will take over. 

It's already happening according to St Andrews guy. 

Edited May 5, 2022 by Detournement