navguy12
Active Member
Maybe Tucker should watch that while the MSM gets Tukers take on what was in that video. /S
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Russia/Ukraine conflict
- Thread starter amolina
- Start date
I'm not sure what that sort of disinformation would achieve for Ukraine. It certainly wouldn't help encourage more Russian pilots to follow Kuzminov's example. I'd wager he's dead.
navguy12
Active Member
And Lindbergh’s reputation was then irrevocably tarnished after that.
DanCar
Active Member
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
To butcher Shakespeare: 'Cowards die many times; The Valiant taste the tea but once.'
Next up: Reville Chamberlain.
Tiger
Active Member
Tiger
Active Member
What would happen if people would first seek to immobilize the vehicles Rosgvardiya Police arrive with? It would become a fight to death. Eventually more vehicles would arrive and be immobilized. Weapons colected from defeated police, and that's how the snowball starts? Perhaps civil war?
The situation between the UK and Germany was not all that unlike Ukraine and Russia today. The British controlled the Atlantic, but Germany was making a play to neutralize that with u-boats. Britain's capabilities in anti-submarine warfare were advancing at a high rate. What ultimately turned the tide were escort carriers. The US built over 100 of them in Vancouver, WA and gave a bunch to the UK via lend lease. Without the US in the war, the US could have still given Britain the carriers.
The two air forces were pretty evenly matched. By the end of 1940 Britain could control it's air space completely in day time and Germany had to operate at night. British night fighter technology was coming along and would have been inflicting high casualties on the German night bombers by late 1941 if the Blitz hadn't ended.
Germany was more powerful on land, but they didn't have the lift capability to get their troops to England. For the 1940 invasion they had cobbled together every barge they could find, which would have made the channel crossing treacherous. River barges are not designed to handle open water.
The Germans also assessed they couldn't invade England without controlling the air and neutralizing the Royal Navy, both of which were beyond the reach of their forces. The Battle of Britain was an attempt to neutralize the RAF and it failed. During the battle the RAF grew stronger while the Luftwaffe grew weaker.
By the end of the battle Britain was producing more fighters than they were losing and they had stepped up their pilot training significantly. Britain also maintained their pilot rotation program throughout the battle so there was always a cadre of experienced and rested pilots. Germany was not rotating their pilots and by September 1940 they were exhausted. Because Germany was on the offense any aircraft shot down resulted in the loss of an air crew even if they survived while anybody who was shot down and survived on the RAF side was preserved. If injured they might be sent to training command to train up the next generation of pilots, but if fine, they would be put back into a plane and put into the air again.
The Commonwealth didn't have the manpower to defeat Germany on the European continent. That took countries with larger populations. However, they did have the ability to keep Germany in check pretty much indefinitely.
The Commonwealth and Germany had roughly the same manpower available, but the Commonwealth had that manpower spread out across the globe. Britain had many overseas possessions that needed to be protected. Britain also had one of the largest navies in the world that soaked up a significant portion of their manpower. Germany had a very small surface navy, and was a continental power with the bulk of their manpower in the army. Germany also didn't have any possessions outside Europe so they could concentrate their ground forces more than the Commonwealth could.
In the current war Russia has more people, but their available manpower is sapped by trying to maintain an economy and maintain a massive land empire. Because of civilian resistance to the war, they are limited in how many men they can call up at a time. A general mobilization of all men of military age would both crash the economy and lead to massive riots. Ukraine has 1/3 the population, but they have shut down most of the civilian economy. 1/3 of their GDP is pouring into the military. The largest spending of any country on Earth by a large margin.
Even with US aid suspended, they are holding out. Advidivka is being taken by the Russians, but at an astronomical cost. If they took ground at this rate all the way to Kyiv Russia would lose multiple times its entire population getting there. Russia is suffering huge losses just as the Luftwaffe did in the summer of 1940. They are not sustainable losses long term.
The goal of this war is more achievable than the Commonwealth's goal in 1940. The Allies drove all the way to Berlin and destroyed the Third Reich at its heart. The goal of the current war is to get Russia off Ukraine's territory. Ukrainian tanks are not going to be in Red Square at the end of this.
Ukraine needs the right equipment to win, the war is in a dangerous stage right now,
Ukraine needs a lot more tanks, artillery and planes,
Or they need to hold the current line, because the terrain is fairly open beyond the current front line,
Defending the NATO border will be difficult if Ukraine falls.
I recommend viewing the video,,
Last edited:
bobby g
Member
He had ties as well (maybe Edsel)
Attachments
Russia's Avdiivka Losses Higher Than Entire Soviet-Afghan War
They state 17,000 causalities since Russia began it's major assault on the city in October.
Wikipedia has a page dedicated to the battle
Battle of Avdiivka (2022–2024) - Wikipedia
17,000 Russian dead has been quoted in many places I've seen. This page also included equipment losses and wounded. In total they advanced about 9 Km. It's 583 Km to Kyiv.
At the same loss rate it would cost Russia 1.1 billion dead to get to Kyiv.
We also need to consider the terrain, and how well prepared defensive positions are.
There is fairly open territory behind the current front line, Ukraine has prepared some defensive positions....
Unless Ukraine gets sufficient military equipment they need to put a lot of effort into preparing positions and make optimal use of any local buildings and geography.
They also need to be able to stop gliding bombs, which means shooting down more Russian planes.
Russian attacks against well prepared positions without sufficient air support will result in more heavy losses.
We know the Russians will attack anyway, but we also know the Ukrainians are more than prepared to dig trenches.
So along with all of the tanks, artillery, shells, air defence, planes and drones, we should send Ukraine some earthmoving equipment.
True, if the Russians get much further west they will be getting into the flat farmland of central Ukraine. But both sides have stalled out due to the trench networks in this same terrain in the south. Because drones give almost omniscient power of drones, moving anywhere over clear terrain is very dangerous.
The Ukrainians are pretty good at trenching. They have built trenches all along the northern border now.
Realistically it may not cost Russia 1.1 billion dead to get to Kyiv, but they will still run out of population long before they get there, even at a fraction of the rate of losses in Avdiivka. Russia has a shortage of infantry vehicles now which means most of their infantry is unmounted and moving slowly. Considering how effective drones are at taking out vehicles, they are probably a little safer, but instead of drones dropping AT weapons on them like they are vehicles, they are using drones to direct artillery which wipes out the infantry.
Russia only has about 8 million men between 18 and 40. They have probably thrown close to 1 million of them into this war already. And a significant number of them are dead or disabled now. The disabled will be a burden on the Russian economy the rest of their lives. Even if Russia mostly ignores them like the USSR did the disabled vets from WW II, they still exact a toll on the economy and the country has lost productive workers.
Add on top of that the nearly 1 million who have left the country since the war began. Some of those people are children and women, but at least 1/2 million have left.
Russia was facing serious manpower shortages before the war because of the declining birthrate over the last 40 years. They have now made it dramatically worse by losing around 25% of the generation they need the most.
If they throw all they have left of that generation into the war and get them killed or maimed, their economy won't be viable after the war without massive immigration.
I believe the number is closer to 20 million.
Yes, I do think that the long run consequences of this war will be very hard for Russia to recover from...
But the video I posted did cause me to consider if we were being too optimistic about the short term prospects for Ukraine.
if the US arms deal passes and Ukraine gets the weapons it needs, then I think we can afford to be optimistic..
Surely the ghost of Ronald Regan has some ability to haunt Republicans into the right decision?
Or even Dick Cheney. Piss that guy off and he'll shoot you in the face.
