Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates

  1. Past hour
  2. Hmm, I'm really not seeing that... the officer whose bodycam we're seeing, I can't totally rule out that the first shot couldn't have been his/her, but I don't see the slide move, and the timing also fits perfectly into the intervals of the other 7 shots by the cop who fired most of the rounds. Unless there's better footage suggesting video blur / frame rate hid the slide movement and timing of the shot into the other ones salvo was random coincidence, i'd be inclined to say (probably) no shots fired by that cop...
  3. Today
  4. The EU was a de facto German oriented organization before Merkel. I dont think it was even necessarily the Germans doing, its kind of hard to ignore the power of a reunified Germany, even if you were of a mind to do so. It is notable how much less influence the French seemingly have since Chirac however.
  5. Try this on for size. Its probably going to sound potty, but ive long been derided as a member of the Tanknet loony bin, so Im not proud. If Putin and the Russian General staff do indeed believe that NATO is setting up a base in Ukraine (or at least, affect to believe it), what precisely is stopping them attacking us first, in a limited fashion so we cannot intervene, or at least are intimidated from doing so, for fear of what follows? Whether its as simple as a cyber attack, even targeted assassinations. Maybe even destroying a few internet cables and gas pipelines. Perhaps, at the extreme and unlikely end, Iskander strikes from Kaliningrad against NATO communication and supply facilities. The just discussed 'Demonstrative nuclear use'. If you are viewing the world through Putin's eyes, why are you going to give your potential adversary the chance to act against your interests, particularly after we implied that we would? Yes, Georgia is a precident. A failed precident, because they were intimidated into not taking Tbilisi, and were unable to remove Saakashvili and install a puppet. Much the same occurred in Ukraine. But he has a bigger army now. Their deep strike capability, whether its via Iskander, Su34 or even submarine launched hypersonic missiles, is much improved. Who can say for certainty they wont actually use it? Im not saying its a clever idea. Im just saying that just because it wont work, doesnt mean it isnt considered. Just... stop and think about it is all im saying. These guys believe themselves the proud inheritors of the Soviet tradition. So how would THOSE guys have done it? They would have insisted on getting their hits in first. Its easy to get paranoid about this kind of thing, and lose all perspective. But equally I think it possible to overlook possiblities that have not been considered. If I was their General Staff, going into a conflict I felt likely would bring in NATO anyway at some point, I know what I would do, and it wouldnt be to wait.
  6. Its in their doctrine. Usually after the fighting has started though. As for Kosovo, its another thread. We have done this before several dozen times, having a good thread get dragged off centre by people with a personal grievence. Im not perfect, Ive done it myself I admit. This time its too important, so please, just dont. You dont like NATO, you are pissed about Kosovo. I entirely get it. Please make your own thread on the subject rather than drowning us in tangents. Distinct emphasis on the polite please here.
  7. The "Tank Attack" bit is real, Mike Cecil has a nice wall of text about it, I just don't know how common that usage actually was given its absence in the material available to me. The manual doesn't use it, the data plate riveted to the actual vehicle doesn't use it, and that tallies with what Mike wrote that when asked "What do you want these things called?" the Army did not reply "Tank Attack" or anything similar, so how wedded to that can they have been? And then they went back to "anti tank" when the war was over anyway. According to the army, for a period of time, yes that was a carrier for a 2 pounder tank attack gun. The AAAM sometimes appear a bit puzzled by what they have in their possession, and I'm pretty sure they copied some of the text on their exhibit display boards straight off Wikipedia, they might have grabbed the 2pdr carrier info somewhere off the web too?
  8. If there is a war it likely will be quick, limited, NATO will stay out of it and Russia will certainly not attack them preemptively. Georgia is the closest precedent.
  9. Boing bid wrong. They should have bid the F-15EX which is ideal.
  10. I sit corrected, now I have gone home and pulled up the manual. I know I saw "tank attack" somewhere more official than random web pages, though. Australian Museum of Armor and Artillery describe theirs as an "Attack Carrier". It has its roots somewhere.
  11. The black and white video where Arthur Brown is wearing a hat on fire is weirder.
  12. Hi, Need some help, I just stumbled across this. Lists all major equipment the Army intended to field to Europe, SWA, and the Pacific: https://emu.usahec.org/alma/multimedia/639653/20184784MNBT989110551F025441I001.pdf I'm just trying to reconcile the MBT numbers, Pacific i have the two tank Bns of 2 ID in Korea and it looks like they are counting the Tank Bn at Ft. Lewis also. There are at least two pages marked "Corrected" so I am going off those numbers.
  13. "Bring up the PITA!" Could be, the anti tank equipment nomenclature did change from one to the other. I thought I had a pdf of a manual for it, but I can't seem to find it so I might be misremembering, but I've only seen first hand material that looks like this: but I've never laid eyes on anything official that used the "Tank Attack" variation for that particular vehicle.
  14. Just a simple tailor. He did such a good job in Dirty Harry he was typecast for years as a psycho.
  15. I watched it again. Both officers are male and both fired. One officer fired multiple rounds while the other then fired once.
  16. It looked to me that the first officer fired one round, but I could be mistaken. That's why I said both should be fired. If she didn't shoot, then I see no obvious reason to discipline her. The 48 hour rule, is a good rule, but in this case I can't see anything changing.
  17. Not to sound like a broken record, but Russia would have to shoot down dozens of satellites to accomplish that. And suffer the same, at a minimum, when its adversaries have a much greater capability of backstopping their satellite intel with persistent stealth HALE drones. It isn't especially practical for Russia to engage Wester recon satellites even in a full on war; it certainly isn't practical for them to do so if NATO isn't already involved.
  18. If he does it over NATO territory, I think there will be an equivalent response. And if it happens over the Ukraine, then NATO might respond with something over Belarus or Crimea. A depressed trajectory Trident would be there in 7-9 minutes from most practical patrol ranges.
  19. I think NATO is simply smart that they can't fight Russia in the Ukraine and there's no point in doing so. There is no legal obligation for the US et al to send troops into a hopeless logistical situation. If the Russians want to go there, NATO honestly has everything to gain: that will sap Russian manpower for years and make the Baltics more secure.
  20. Russia, or rather Putin, will manufacture any justification needed on demand. Does the Ukraine threaten Russian security if as most say on this thread, it is ready to implode? Because if the Ukraine is going to implode, why does Russia need to invade it? Is NATO touching Ukraine membership with a ten foot pole right now? Has it ever? Manufactured cause for a war Russia just wants to have. That's why I'm now convinced it is more likely than not. I don't think Russia will time its offensive with Putin's talk with Biden; I think Putin will time his talk with Biden with his offensive. He gets to choose on both counts. Belarus was always going to end up being occupied as soon as Lukashanko's political position deteriorated. It wouldn't have taken a war with the Ukraine for that to manifest. IMO it was just a matter of time. But there is no way that Russia enters a war with the Ukraine without that flank secured, whether Luca Brasie wants it or not.
  21. Not to sound too much like a broken record, but the first thing the Russian military will presumably want is the total incapacitation of NATO's ability to surveil anything going on in Russia, starting maybe some days before an invasion. The mobiization to war stations needs US eyes blinded so that Ukrainian army reserves cannot concentrate along threat lanes. The Russian air defense network pretty much seems designed for a situation where the movement of its critical elements cannot be tracked by satellites and such. Added to this the fact that starting to shoot these down sends a serious signal. (The low orbit stuff, not the high orbit). Jingoism is a tourist industry. Real national interests are needed for the majority of a population to get on board for a war that could result in national self-destruction. Russia holds the advantage here because Ukraine is in their back yard, while probably half of Americans couldn't even find it on a map.
  22. I regret missing this thread back in August ... but I believe that you are missing a big point with respect to the hypothetical destruction of the Dec.7 / 41 Pearl Harbor fuel tank farms ... that being ...
  23. May God help the poor sod that learnt all his Canadian Technical English watching AvE videos...
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...