War in Ukraine

#25,876
#25,876
Septic said:
I don't understand why anyone would think that a warship in a war zone could be the casualty of the very things that occur during a war.

1654fd690cd8bfffe50a30896cb37aaf_w200.gif
Click to expand...
I’d guess it was a combination of both mechanisms. The Ukrainians struck the ship with at least one anti ship missile. And then the idiot ass incompetent Russian navy launched into full Keystone Cops damage control mode and turned what could have been recoverable damage from a combat engagement into a total loss of one of only three Slava cruiser class capital ships.

By trying to downplay a combat engagement the idiot Russians are only drawing more attention to their own ineptitude and it’s hilarious to watch
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, allvol123, Septic and 2 others
#25,877
#25,877
BigOrangeTrain said:
You would probably believe anything that’s reported as long as it’s against Russia. What a sheep. You and the other mouth breathers have actually bought the media kool aid. A tweet that says Ukraine is doing well? It’s 100% accurate without question. A tweet that contradicts that? It’s 100% propaganda without question. Everything Russia puts out is propaganda while the equally corrupt Ukraine is nothing but truth. Lol.

Meanwhile NATO and our worthless government continue to fuel this fire. Biden continues to send more aid and money to a corrupt government. Buts it’s cool right? And how about those sanctions huh? Man they were gonna sink Russia. Lol. Yeah how did that work out? Meanwhile innocent citizens around the world are suffering because of the idiotic EU and US who feel like it’s their job to police the world.
Click to expand...

Blaming NATO again, you really are their slow witted son. I don’t watch the news and don’t use social media. I just enjoy seeing a doucher like Putin get what’s coming to him unless you actually believe a former KGB member can become a billionaire in a relatively poor nation along with all of his butt buddies through legitimate means. Throw an illegitimate invasion of a neighboring country on top of that and it’s quite entertaining watching him eat a giant s**t sandwich. But, you do you and defend his stupidity I enjoy it as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, Dergibvol and VOLSONLY
#25,878
#25,878
hog88 said:
I don't even know what you are talking about? Yeah, he overran his supply lines more than once and had to stop until they caught up. IMO that's better than letting the tail wag the dog and giving the enemy time for an orderly reargaurd withdrawal.
Click to expand...

Rommel overran his supply lines quite frequently, it’s really the entire premise of blitzkrieg tactics, punch through the enemy’s lines quickly with fast moving armored units and then let the infantry mop up. It’s basically what modern US armored tactics were modeled after, overwhelm the enemy quickly.
 
#25,886
#25,886
landscapingvol said:
Rommel overran his supply lines quite frequently, it’s really the entire premise of blitzkrieg tactics, punch through the enemy’s lines quickly with fast moving armored units and then let the infantry mop up. It’s basically what modern US armored tactics were modeled after, overwhelm the enemy quickly.
Click to expand...

Actually I just finished a good book by a retired US General about a US General in WW 2, Maurice Rose, commander of the 3rd Armored Division. Was killed a few days before the end of the war, was always up on the front lines. Was highly respected by al the senior generals for his never stop charging approach even with inferior tanks. The pallbearers at his burial (while combat was still going on) included Omar Bradley, George Patton, Lightning Joe Collins, and his 1st Army commander, General Hodges.

The author hits over and over that the US doctrine is "Send a bullet not a man." He explains that whenever US Infantry meets resistance they hold in place and consolidate and then pound the enemy with artillery and air support before going in with the tanks followed by infantry. That can result in quick movement but it's not the way my aviator mind understood blitzkrieg.

The under appreciated element in all of this was US artillery. The German 88 may have been a better all around gun, but the US 75s were very accurate and we used more artillery than other nations. And don't forget the P-47 which was incredible in close ground support.

Now obviously battle environments like Iraq at the beginning where we have such a superiority on firepower, we can just roll, but I was surprised by what this guy (Major General Bolger) wrote. One thing, he likes Field Marshall Montgomery. GAG!
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#25,887
#25,887
hog88 said:
I don't even know what you are talking about? Yeah, he overran his supply lines more than once and had to stop until they caught up. IMO that's better than letting the tail wag the dog and giving the enemy time for an orderly reargaurd withdrawal.
Click to expand...
So everytime he ran out of supplies he had completely surrounded his enemy, or completely cut off their avenue of retreat? Because you would have a point if he did, somehow I doubt it.

Because if he maintained steady pressure they also wouldnt be able to just pull out like they could when he had to sit still days at a time waiting on supplies.

There are certain aspects where his rush was appropriate, but not nearly as often as he used it. Take a bridge before they blow it, take a port or airfield, ok. Take some random town? They can still get out. Take a hill, they can go around.
 
#25,891
#25,891
If Russia drops a low yield nuke in Ukraine but with no effect on a nearby NATO ally, what do we do about it?

If Russia drops a low yield nuke in Ukraine with probable, but not certain, effects on a NATO ally what do we do about it?

If Russia drops a low yield nuke in Ukraine with definite effect on a NATO ally what do we do about it?
 
#25,892
#25,892
lawgator1 said:
If Russia drops a low yield nuke in Ukraine but with no effect on a nearby NATO ally, what do we do about it?

If Russia drops a low yield nuke in Ukraine with probable, but not certain, effects on a NATO ally what do we do about it?

If Russia drops a low yield nuke in Ukraine with definite effect on a NATO ally what do we do about it?
Click to expand...

The answer to all 3 is either nothing or get into WWIII
 
  • Like
Reactions: VOLSONLY
#25,895
#25,895
WBO said:
Actually I just finished a good book by a retired US General about a US General in WW 2, Maurice Rose, commander of the 3rd Armored Division. Was killed a few days before the end of the war, was always up on the front lines. Was highly respected by al the senior generals for his never stop charging approach even with inferior tanks. The pallbearers at his burial (while combat was still going on) included Omar Bradley, George Patton, Lightning Joe Collins, and his 1st Army commander, General Hodges.

The author hits over and over that the US doctrine is "Send a bullet not a man." He explains that whenever US Infantry meets resistance they hold in place and consolidate and then pound the enemy with artillery and air support before going in with the tanks followed by infantry. That can result in quick movement but it's not the way my aviator mind understood blitzkrieg.

The under appreciated element in all of this was US artillery. The German 88 may have been a better all around gun, but the US 75s were very accurate and we used more artillery than other nations. And don't forget the P-47 which was incredible in close ground support.

Now obviously battle environments like Iraq at the beginning where we have such a superiority on firepower, we can just roll, but I was surprised by what this guy (Major General Bolger) wrote. One thing, he likes Field Marshall Montgomery. GAG!
Click to expand...

Agreed on the nuances of blitzkrieg, just commenting on modern tank warfare being greatly influenced by Rommel, Patton, and Guderian not Bradley or Montgomery
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and WBO
#25,897
#25,897
lawgator1 said:
If Russia drops a low yield nuke in Ukraine but with no effect on a nearby NATO ally, what do we do about it?

If Russia drops a low yield nuke in Ukraine with probable, but not certain, effects on a NATO ally what do we do about it?

If Russia drops a low yield nuke in Ukraine with definite effect on a NATO ally what do we do about it?
Click to expand...

I'm holding out hope that Crazy Ivan is not that crazy. Russia is in a bad position though. They've been exposed as a paper tiger. They may not even be capable of holding Donbas much less the whole of Ukraine. I'm sure Putin feels he has to get something out of this that looks like a victory. If he fails there is a real possibility his presidency and his life doesn't survive. I'm afraid that Putin feels if he can't have it no one will.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VOLSONLY and USF grad in TN
#25,898
#25,898
landscapingvol said:
If anyone was overrated, it was Monty. Monty was methodical but he was hesitant and over confident in his own abilities
Click to expand...
Yes. See Operation Market Garden for what happened when Monty was given the go ahead for one of his own operations. Also see the assaults on Caen following D Day. Also see the failure to close the Falaise Pocket in a timely manner. Also see….well you get the idea….always overplanned and too late
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and WBO
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top