Ukraine
-
-
@antipodean Jesus Christ that host is a scary bitch, she truly believes the West wants to destroy Russia and they started the special operation. That old Colonel can't be alone in his thoughts, he has figured it out so there must be plenty of others. I wonder if the Russian soldiers themselves know what is going on and you wonder how their morale/professionalism is going.
-
@chimoaus I think some of their new US artillery got in on the party. A big concentration of Russians waiting by the riverside? Let's give some of the new systems a hoon aye!
I mentioned it earlier in the thread but the way they are calling in strikes via Skylink and using drones is super effective. As they get more advanced gear they'll be able to ramp things up further. Pushing the Russians back to the border, even just a small part, must have been a massive morale boost.
-
@Rapido Any idea how they destroyed all those tanks? Was it all via drones/artillery. That is some fucken accurate targeting. Or was it people on the ground? Just seems a very effective operation whatever they did.
A Ukrainian combat engineer was boasting on twitter a few days ago about how he masterminded it.
Dont know if he is legit.
Seems there is no such things as "loose lips, sink ships" anymore.
But was an interesting read. Basically pre-scouted the likely position, and then called in artillery strike on that pre-planned position based on sound of the assembly/engineer boat.
-
@Rapido Any idea how they destroyed all those tanks? Was it all via drones/artillery. That is some fucken accurate targeting. Or was it people on the ground? Just seems a very effective operation whatever they did.
A Ukrainian combat engineer was boasting on twitter a few days ago about how he masterminded it.
Dont know if he is legit.
Seems there is no such things as "loose lips, sink ships" anymore.
But was an interesting read.
Evidently while most of the vehicles in the picture are Russian there are also some Ukrainian BMP-1s which were destroyed when the Russians made the initial assault/crossing.
-
On the downside, the cost of fuel and food is skyrocketing globally; but on the upside there are tangible benefits and opportunities on the domestic homefront.
Exclusive:
-
I remember Thatcher having to borrow weapons from the US because they didn't have enough to wage the Falklands War
From what I recall, the UK had enough weapons, ships and aircraft, but the Royal Navy dipped into reserved NATO stocks for the latest Sidewinder AAM's.
But I can't be arsed to re-read Max Hasting's book on the matter to confirm that.
Those sidewinders made a huge difference. Allowed the sub-sonic Harrier to outfight the supersonic jets of the Argentians.
I've read the Sea Harrier was way, way better in air-air combat than the Argentinian Mirages. It was much more manoeuvrable and faster at actual combat altitude than its opponents and had better radar and avionics. Perhaps @Machpants can add something.
-
@antipodean said in Ukraine:
@Rapido armour advance through narrow corridor in wooded terrain. What could possibly go wrong?
Meanwhile Russia sends missiles to the border with Finland.
There's a theory I've read where Mikhail Khodarenok's comments have been allowed on Russian state TV to shift the narrative from Putin's "Special Military Operation to de-nazify Ukraine" to one of "we're fighting the entire west which is why things aren't going well"
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Ukraine:
I remember Thatcher having to borrow weapons from the US because they didn't have enough to wage the Falklands War
From what I recall, the UK had enough weapons, ships and aircraft, but the Royal Navy dipped into reserved NATO stocks for the latest Sidewinder AAM's.
But I can't be arsed to re-read Max Hasting's book on the matter to confirm that.
Those sidewinders made a huge difference. Allowed the sub-sonic Harrier to outfight the supersonic jets of the Argentians.
I've read the Sea Harrier was way, way better in air-air combat than the Argentinian Mirages. It was much more manoeuvrable and faster at actual combat altitude than its opponents and had better radar and avionics. Perhaps @Machpants can add something.
There's a good Falklands War podcast going on at the moment. By 2 journalists who accompanied the task force. Comes out weekly.
In it, they said the sidewinders allowed the Harriers to fire front-on etc as they approached the contact, while the Argentinian jets still needed to get behind the harriers with their older missiles (like an old-fashioned dogfight). Can't remember if that comment was by a Harrier pilot they were interviewing, or by one of the hosts themselves (which would have been less gospel).
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Ukraine:
I remember Thatcher having to borrow weapons from the US because they didn't have enough to wage the Falklands War
From what I recall, the UK had enough weapons, ships and aircraft, but the Royal Navy dipped into reserved NATO stocks for the latest Sidewinder AAM's.
But I can't be arsed to re-read Max Hasting's book on the matter to confirm that.
Those sidewinders made a huge difference. Allowed the sub-sonic Harrier to outfight the supersonic jets of the Argentians.
I've read the Sea Harrier was way, way better in air-air combat than the Argentinian Mirages. It was much more manoeuvrable and faster at actual combat altitude than its opponents and had better radar and avionics. Perhaps @Machpants can add something.
Nah, it was more about their training, and SA than anything technical. A lot of the kills were on unaware Argentinians, and even when they engaged the argies were pretty clueless. The all aspect sidewinder certainly helped, tho, also that they had some direction from the ships and more fuel to use
-
@Machpants said in Ukraine:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Ukraine:
I remember Thatcher having to borrow weapons from the US because they didn't have enough to wage the Falklands War
From what I recall, the UK had enough weapons, ships and aircraft, but the Royal Navy dipped into reserved NATO stocks for the latest Sidewinder AAM's.
But I can't be arsed to re-read Max Hasting's book on the matter to confirm that.
Those sidewinders made a huge difference. Allowed the sub-sonic Harrier to outfight the supersonic jets of the Argentians.
I've read the Sea Harrier was way, way better in air-air combat than the Argentinian Mirages. It was much more manoeuvrable and faster at actual combat altitude than its opponents and had better radar and avionics. Perhaps @Machpants can add something.
Nah, it was more about their training, and SA than anything technical. A lot of the kills were on unaware Argentinians, and even when they engaged the argies were pretty clueless. The all aspect sidewinder certainly helped, tho, also that they had some direction from the ships and more fuel to use
Thanks.
Interestingly, I was a talk yonks ago by an ex-RN officer who did the same sort of business stuff I did. He pointed out the availability of the Harriers was very high due to the productivity of aircraft technicians. And a key reason their productivity was good was the quality of the accommodation on the carriers which allowed good sleep/recuperation.