Russia and Ukraine

WuzzaCBXRider said:
Sadly, innocents are always killed as collateral damage when soldiers are fighting soldiers but I wonder how the Russian soldiers feel about intentionally killing innocents with their air strikes and ground assaults on civilians who aren’t enemy combatants? Not since Hitler’s invasion before and during WW2 has the world seen such brazen and unwarranted attacks on innocents. Putin should be taken out now just like Hitler should’ve been early on.
Click to expand...
he will be in his protected bubble, surrounded with his Putin advisors, feeding him the news he wants to hear
 
mark3evo said:
Molotov cocktails on action, reining down from tower blocks onto armoured vehicles, is it in Ukraine who knows it could be Syria... Just shows you what can be achieved

guidance also been given to throw bags of paint and blankets over the periscopes to render the tank blind, force to open the hatch

https://twitter.com/x/status/1497424391117881347
Click to expand...
I've seen this in action, it is a sign of desperation.

Our western forces fight differently than the eastern forces, we cover each other going in.

I've seen tanks firing coax at other tanks to shake off infantry.

Generally tank units don't go in without infantry coverage...pretty hard for a person to get close enough to use a molotov or tarp when an infantry unit is covering tank movement. If the battle group were to come up to such a situation, the infantry would be dismounted to provide ground coverage.

I'm not quite believing all the videos I've been seeing...the propaganda machine is hard at work...real pictures won't be shown as it would demoralize troops....and as both sides are using almost identical equipment, these videos are easily confused.
 
Last edited:
TallTom said:
I will qualify by saying it's been a few years but even with those that I worked with that are still there, the problem we have is that a lot of the members are not very dedicated to doing much in the way of defending much. There are a lot of poor countries whose main contribution is to provide real estate. They don't actually want to pick up a weapon. If they do it's to support thier own home interest.

Latvia, Estonia, etc are not trained not care to be used as fighting forces. However they get to add head count to the "number". So if the 3M "troops" at hand, realistically, fighting forces would be closer to 700,000.

I'd like to see Germany stepping up and taking the lead. They are one of the Europe's mainstay countries with a lot to lose in this.

Well trained, well organized, well equipped, and can afford to spread themselves around some.
Click to expand...
Actually Latvia's troop are undergoing extensive training right now...we have a few hundred Canadian troops there training them.....we had a few hundred Canadian troops training the Ukrainian troops as well.

But I digress as you you are correct, some of these smaller countries who have had a lifetime of war are hesitant to do actual fighting on behalf of NATO....real estate is essential too and even if they provide close protection for that real estate, their value is justified.

It would be a nightmare to include many of these other countries in an assault anyway as there are just too many variables-language, communication equipment, arms and ammunition compatibility...but if push came to shove, these troops would be called upon and I'll bet they would fight and fight well as they have seen what war is first hand.
 
Bumblebee said:
I've seen this in action, it is a sign of desperation.

Our western forces fight differently than the eastern forces, we cover each other going in.

I've seen tanks firing coax at other tanks to shake off infantry.

Generally tank units don't go in without infantry coverage...pretty hard for a person to get close enough to use a molotov or tarp when an infantry unit is covering tank movement. If the battle group were to come up to such a situation, the infantry would be dismounted to provide ground coverage.

I'm not quite believing all the videos I've been seeing...the propaganda machine is hard at work...real pictures won't be shown as it would demoralize troops....and as both sides are using almost identical equipment, these videos are easily confused.
Click to expand...
I Think that vid was from 2014, its hard to verify anything.

on Sky news the reporter just now, was showing hundreds making these cocktails adding styrofoam to make the contents stick
 
Bumblebee said:
I've seen this in action, it is a sign of desperation.

Our western forces fight differently than the eastern forces, we cover each other going in.

I've seen tanks firing coax at other tanks to shake off infantry.

Generally tank units don't go in without infantry coverage...pretty hard for a person to get close enough to use a molotov or tarp when an infantry unit is covering tank movement. If the battle group were to come up to such a situation, the infantry would be dismounted to provide ground coverage.

I'm not quite believing all the videos I've been seeing...the propaganda machine is hard at work...real pictures won't be shown as it would demoralize troops....and as both sides are using almost identical equipment, these videos are easily confused.
Click to expand...
It is amazing how fragile a tank is without infantry. You would think with the technology these days they would have the ability to see all around and watch for someone walking up to them with a tank buster. Heck, I can look all around my car on the video screen! I think some tanks can even stand the fallout from a nuke! Reminds me of the movie Fury, a really good movie BTW.
 
Bumblebee said:
Actually Latvia's troop are undergoing extensive training right now...we have a few hundred Canadian troops there training them.....we had a few hundred Canadian troops training the Ukrainian troops as well.

But I digress as you you are correct, some of these smaller countries who have had a lifetime of war are hesitant to do actual fighting on behalf of NATO....real estate is essential too and even if they provide close protection for that real estate, their value is justified.

It would be a nightmare to include many of these other countries in an assault anyway as there are just too many variables-language, communication equipment, arms and ammunition compatibility...but if push came to shove, these troops would be called upon and I'll bet they would fight and fight well as they have seen what war is first hand.
Click to expand...
Exactly. And take that up a step. There is no singular communication platform. Not much is standardized. Germany will do it their way. France will do it thier way. England etc. So while it helps to say we have X number of NATO members, they have yet to be put to any sort of test as a unified fighting force.

So this far from a ready to go defense force against Russia.

And the U.S. is the farthest one away and the most costly to deploy there.
 
fallenarch said:
It is amazing how fragile a tank is without infantry. You would think with the technology these days they would have the ability to see all around and watch for someone walking up to them with a tank buster. Heck, I can look all around my car on the video screen! I think some tanks can even stand the fallout from a nuke! Reminds me of the movie Fury, a really good movie BTW.
Click to expand...
It' called combined arms for a reason...infantry are the eyes and ears to protect the tanks and other assets. Each element covers the back of the other...even air assets are out there using FLIR to cover battlefield movements. The issue facing combined arms coverage is how fast movement is on the modern battlefield....tanks can go faster than 60kms/hr...it makes it hard for the mechanized infantry to provide close protection.

Modern tanks have similar tech but many of these advance anti-armor weapons are easy to hide, quick to use and are fire and forget tech.

We have to remember, Russia hasn't sent in their Armada fleet, those are quite step up from the T-72 and T-90S which are currently engaged in Ukraine...The Armada have systems that detect and counter anti-armor weapons and better reactive armor.

As soon as these partisan tactics are deployed (molotovs and tarps), whole buildings will be demolished by air which will deny the defenders the opportunity to engage such tactics.
 
Tetsuo1000 said:
We are a (only?) part of the universe that can observe itself with cognition, and we are fighting over lines in the dirt.
I fear we are entering our great filter, and nothing will come out the other side.
Elon was too late, all our eggs are in this basket.
Click to expand...
Humans have been at war and battling each other when we were wearing animal skins and using sticks and will continue to do so until we are exterminated (by our own hand).
 
Bumblebee said:
It' called combined arms for a reason...infantry are the eyes and ears to protect the tanks and other assets. Each element covers the back of the other...even air assets are out there using FLIR to cover battlefield movements. The issue facing combined arms coverage is how fast movement is on the modern battlefield....tanks can go faster than 60kms/hr...it makes it hard for the mechanized infantry to provide close protection.

Modern tanks have similar tech but many of these advance anti-armor weapons are easy to hide, quick to use and are fire and forget tech.

We have to remember, Russia hasn't sent in their Armada fleet, those are quite step up from the T-72 and T-90S which are currently engaged in Ukraine...The Armada have systems that detect and counter anti-armor weapons and better reactive armor.

As soon as these partisan tactics are deployed (molotovs and tarps), whole buildings will be demolished by air which will deny the defenders the opportunity to engage such tactics.
Click to expand...
I’ve never been to war or know much but aren’t most battles won by strictly air support (bombers, helicopters, surveillance, drones, multi-role fights etc) and infantry? Can’t a small force bring a large army to its knees by simply having air superiority and infantry.
 
Bumblebee said:
Humans have been at war and battling each other when we were wearing animal skins and using sticks and will continue to do so until we are exterminated (by our own hand).
Click to expand...
I think war was directly related to the discovery of farming grains. Tribes use to be nomads and peaceful between each other until they discovered they didn’t need to roam for food and started planting and growing farm land. Then tribes would fight over the land and grain to claim their own.
 
JeffSyh said:
I’ve never been to war or know much but aren’t most battles won by strictly air support (bombers, helicopters, surveillance, drones, multi-role fights etc) and infantry? Can’t a small force bring a large army to its knees by simply having air superiority and infantry.
Click to expand...
Battles are won by combined arms....it is a very complex operation which involves everything from mechanics to pilots...

Intelligence gathering both on ground and in the air is essential...knowing where your enemy is, their strength and composition is paramount.

Sending recce elements with protection and engineers to survey routes for approach, then armor which takes the ground and infantry which holds it. Artillery is used to tactically engage targets and is called in by the lead elements.

Air elements are also essential, air superiority is also paramount but this is primarily so the enemy air forces are not able to engage your ground forces, or air forces, insert their own ground forces or gather intelligence. Drones are used quite a bit to gather intelligence and to deliver tactical payloads.

Naval elements are essential as in many cases they are also the air elements, they also can be the supply and personnel distribution network in various cases. They also control water ways so the enemy combatant navy can't engage your ground or air elements.

Special Forces are used for various roles, intelligence gathering, tactical and strategic strikes, engaging and eliminating key targets, disrupting enemy communications and controls, directing fire both from the air and ground and also directing conventional ground forces.

Cyber warfare is part of this as well. the ability to shut down the ears and eyes of your enemy is paramount.

In behind all this are the unsung heroes, signal operators, supply technicians, mechanics, transport people, medics, weapon techs, ammunition techs, military police, etc. These people keep the machines and people. moving forward.

As you can see, all these elements have to work together in order to achieve the mission.
 
JeffSyh said:
I think war was directly related to the discovery of farming grains. Tribes use to be nomads and peaceful between each other until they discovered they didn’t need to roam for food and started planting and growing farm land. Then tribes would fight over the land and grain to claim their own.
Click to expand...
We'll never really know....

I think wars were started because people are tribal and if you aren't part of their tribe, you are an enemy...

Kidnapping of women was probably a catalyst as well
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Zerks
MIC Profit Time
Replies
2
Views
1,548
Rojo
Rojo
Zerks
Are they lying now, or before when they said it?
2
Replies
26
Views
2,101
Rojo
Rojo
JeffSyh
What do you thinks going to happen with china and russia?
Replies
14
Views
3,192
Rojo
Rojo
Energizer
Overseas freight shipping services
Replies
2
Views
1,254
Energizer
Energizer
Zerks
Death of the Petro Dollar has started.
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
3,860
Rojo
Rojo
Back
Top