Simbo
Full Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2010
- Messages
- 5,336
He's like a transfer muppet tease sometimes.
He's like a transfer muppet tease sometimes.
I think it was the Sonar that changed the war in the Athlantic?
He's like a transfer muppet tease sometimes.
Probably a question for the military historians but what other weapons system has turned the tide on a conflict in such a way...save for the manhattan project which didn't turn the tide but sped up the inevitable, I think its the proximity fuze in the AA artillery during WW2. Overnight the Axis losses of aircraft increased by orders of magnitude. Also, the Stinger missile during the first Afghan War.
Even Lenin remained in exile when he pulled the strings of the Russian Revolution that saw the downfall of the Romanovs in 1917. I don't think that doing stuff while in exile makes people think any less of an activist with genuine beef against the current regime.
The First tanks would be up there.Probably a question for the military historians but what other weapons system has turned the tide on a conflict in such a way...save for the manhattan project which didn't turn the tide but sped up the inevitable, I think its the proximity fuze in the AA artillery during WW2. Overnight the Axis losses of aircraft increased by orders of magnitude. Also, the Stinger missile during the first Afghan War.
Western sources have picked up this story.
Some balls on this fella.
I agree with that, but sonar was critical in defending the convoys when u boats would attack submerged .U Boats spent longer on mission on the surface than underwater. The invention of airborne radar meant they were vulnerable to attack, detection and destruction on the long journeys out to their allotted stations.
I guess Ukraine MoD pretty much confirms that some missions are happening in the area.
I have no doubt some enlightened souls will find a way to say that this is the US/UK’s fault
Artillery, Anti tank missiles, Anti aircraft missiles..I am really surprised every time I read about "depleted stockpiles". First of all, it is hard to believe this, because the main US power is in the Air Force, and we have not used any Air Force weapons here. We have also not used any tanks or tank ammunition, because Ukraine's tanks are not compatible. And we have definitely not used any navy ammunition, and the US Navy has plenty of rockets and stockpiles. So, the "depleted stockpiles" can only refer to the artillery, which a very secondary weapon for the US, as far as I know.
The other thing is, why do the Americans need to have full stockpiles, if not for helping counter Russia? I mean, the reason we have stockpiles is exactly for what is happening now, right?
It reminds me of the earlier articles about Germany "worrying" about their stockpiles if they give any ammunition to Ukraine. What would Germany need their stockpiles for? It is not like Poland or China would invade Germany and they'd need their artillery ammunition, right?
Could they be just totally unprepared for any activity across the Dnipro river? They have been retreating their forces from the right bank for the past few weeks and diverting them to other fronts right away believing that Dnipro would serve us natural defensive barrier leaving the left bank wide open? I’m not sure how would that work logistically speaking but hey their command must have been planning this for a long time as they likely knew about the eventual retreat for months now.Currently there seem to be developments in two areas.
More solid are reports about a Ukrainian assault on the Svatove/Kreminna front line (continuation of the Izyum/Lyman operations). It looks like that front might collapse soon (rather days than weeks), Russian telegram channels already reached the "Don't panic" stage in their reporting about that area.
Much more doubtful are reports from the Kherson area.
It seems reasonable to assume that Ukraine took Kinburn peninsula by an amphibious assault (the left green circle), which is a difficult area for heavy equipment. But there are some reports that they moved quite a long way to the east and took villages there (the smaller green circles). If that should be true (which I doubt) it would mean that they already took a huge part of the left bank of the river, just days after the huge Russian retreat happened exactly there. Where are the Russians? Why should a small amphibious assault unit be able to perform such a large operation? At the moment I believe this to be just rumours and wishful thinking.![]()
Yes that sounds like the only reasonable explanation if it should be true. But it would be truly amazing as realistically the numbers in that area are somwhere between 10:1 and 100:1 in Russias favour, and only Russia would have heavy equipment on that side. As I have no reports from Ukrainian sources about such a large scale movement (only reports about Kinburn itself) I tend to believe that they "only" took Kinburn and then executed some well orchestrated artillery strikes on the left bank to create the illusion of an advancing force to cause chaos and confusion, basically a PsyOps barrage to increase the effect of the actual SpecOps.Could they be just totally unprepared for any activity across the Dnipro river? They have been retreating their forces from the right bank for the past few weeks and diverting them to other fronts right away believing that Dnipro would serve us natural defensive barrier leaving the left bank wide open? I’m not sure how would that work logistically speaking but hey their command must have been planning this for a long time as they likely knew about the eventual retreat for months now.
Are billions of their funds seized around the world? Maybe that can be used to pay whatever is decidedWhilst we want that to be the case, I feel that Russia will pay nothing when it’s all said and done.
Whilst we want that to be the case, I feel that Russia will pay nothing when it’s all said and done.
And it seemed like he survived! He ran very close to them.Basically one badass Ukranian soldier scaring a dozen of Russians off to nowhere. Hats off to that guy.