1 ... 125 126 127 128 129 ... 139
02Pilot
02Pilot UberDork
5/15/22 6:23 p.m.

In reply to 84FSP :

I don't know if Russia has 1) nuclear warheads in Crimea, and 2) proper handling capabilities for fitting them to SLCMs there. If Russia decides to go nuclear (something I still think is highly unlikely), the survivability of the launching platform will be the least of their concerns.

Pete. (l33t FS)
Pete. (l33t FS) GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
5/15/22 6:33 p.m.

In reply to 02Pilot :

I was under the impression that US subs shadow Russian missile subs and have authorization to torpedo them if they look like they are about to launch.

02Pilot
02Pilot UberDork
5/15/22 8:00 p.m.

In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :

All the submarines known to be in the Black Sea fleet are attack boats, not boomers. They have no capability for SLBM launch against the US mainland, and putting them in the Black Sea would be very limiting; missile boats tend to prefer deep open water. AFAIK, the US does not regularly operate submarines in the Black Sea.

P3PPY
P3PPY GRM+ Memberand Dork
5/15/22 8:29 p.m.
02Pilot said:
NOHOME said:

So, from a propaganda "The world is united against us" point of view. At what point did the Germans realize they were the "Bad Guys" in WW2

The more interesting question is why did they both come to that realization and accept it. With Germany, we have two lost major 20th Century wars as data points, one after which they never accepted responsibility, and the other in which they accepted it quickly and broadly. What was different?

From my limited understanding that may have had a lot to do with the fact that nearly every square foot of Germany was overrun by conquering boots the second time around. They UNDERSTOOD that they lost. Hitler's big spiel (English or German translation will work here I suppose) about WW1 was that the German politicians had treacherously surrendered while Germany was still capable of pulling off a win. Why, they had hardly gotten on German soil, after all! With the exception of some out of the way places, IIRC, in '45 they fought for it all and lost it all-- and every German man, woman, and child could tell.

Second, from memoirs I've read, word of the atrocities was starting to get out to the common soldier even before it was over. To the point where some saw the writing on the wall that there would be only vilification after the war. I assume that shaped some perspectives. 
 

Third, before it was over there were some military men who recognized the absurdity of it all. Case in point, the German commander of the forces that surrendered in Stalingrad. He was being nudged to commit suicide to which he famously referred to Hitler as "that Austrian corporal."

Lastly, it was by no means universal. Some were just as upset that the glory of their exceptional military struggle had been overshadowed by the dishonor of the Holocaust. Still, though, I haven't yet come across a reputable source who espoused that it was not their fault and that the Sept 1, 1939 propaganda was correct --the nonsense about Poland starting it all. It may all boil down to a mix of absolute occupation, and on the west, occupiers who were in many ways similar in looks, beliefs, values, history (compare that to occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan by westerners) and who were encouraging integration with themselves. To the east, there was the slogan "if we ever have to come to Berlin again, there will no longer be a Berlin" and all that mentality. I can scarcely imagine much public objection in the DDR. 

I suppose one more element is that it really truly was their fault, unlike WW1 which seems to my understanding to have been EVERYONE's fault. So that, combined with the occupation stripping away the echo chamber = truth?

VolvoHeretic
VolvoHeretic GRM+ Memberand Reader
5/16/22 12:23 a.m.
frenchyd
frenchyd MegaDork
5/16/22 8:05 a.m.
02Pilot said:

In reply to 84FSP :

Submarines are far less vulnerable to Ukrainian drones and ASMs than surface ships. I suspect the Russians are not exactly pleased with how things have been going on the surface.

Finding and attacking submarines in the Black Sea is relatively straight forward given is size and depth. 
     Using acoustical devices it would be much easier to locate than open ocean. With all its convergence zones issues.  Then using MAD gear ( magnetic anomalies detection)  pinpoint the location.     
       If you just want to annoy ( and discourage) the subs even modest sized PDC's could do that and be carried by any reasonable sized drone.   
      Sinking them might be possible ( I'm speculating here). Using the old ASROCK TORPEDOES. Or if the  US ever controls the sky over the Black Sea  using ASW aircraft. 

QuasiMofo (John Brown)
QuasiMofo (John Brown) GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
5/16/22 9:10 a.m.

Well we could always sell Ukraine all of our old A10 Warthogs and they could try to prove or disprove Tom Clancys Hunt for Red October.

Floating Doc (Forum Supporter)
Floating Doc (Forum Supporter) GRM+ Memberand PowerDork
5/16/22 10:14 a.m.

Submarines aren't going to be at much risk at all from the weapons of the Ukrainians have deployed against ships so far. However, Ukrainians have been very good at adapting. 

QuasiMofo (John Brown)
QuasiMofo (John Brown) GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
5/16/22 10:18 a.m.

Well, if the information is correct the subs are what's left smiley 

Yahoo report of Russian losses as of 5/15

stroker
stroker UberDork
5/16/22 10:58 a.m.
QuasiMofo (John Brown) said:

Well we could always sell Ukraine all of our old A10 Warthogs and they could try to prove or disprove Tom Clancys Hunt for Red October.

Su-25's would be an acceptable substitute in this case.

 

02Pilot
02Pilot UberDork
5/16/22 11:38 a.m.

In reply to P3PPY :

I agree with much of your argument on the Second World War, though I think you may be underplaying some of the complexities of relations with the West post-war, especially the tensions over how to rebuild Western Germany (and this was an external decision, at least initially) between advocates of a robust industrial state, and a permanently pacified agricultural one, and the related issue of what role Germany would play (if any) in post-war security arrangements. In the East there was little initial resistance, especially due to the brutality of Soviet methods (see Norman Naimark's The Russians in Germany: A History of the Soviet Zone of Occupation, 1945–1949, or take a look at this paper from him that predates the publication of the book), but there was a mass uprising in East Berlin in 1953 that was put down as harshly as you might expect.

I disagree with the common oversimplification that the First World War was simply an accident in which all parties shared equal blame for the outcome. This view was prominent until the 1960s, but deeper archival research (begun by Fritz Fischer, and published in his Germany's Aims in the First World War in 1967) turned many scholars away from it. I think there's quite a bit of evidence that shows German actions played a key escalatory role in the summer crisis that ultimately led to war, and that Wilhelm II had entertained aggressive designs for a number of years prior. That's not to say that other nations were without agency, but it was the Germans who facilitated the opportunistic Austrian attempt to crush Serbia, and in doing so opened the door to the wider conflict. At most, I think it's fair to say that the nations of Europe expected war to come, but that is not to say that they had no control over it.

02Pilot
02Pilot UberDork
5/16/22 11:43 a.m.

In reply to frenchyd :

IIRC, you have an ASW background, and I'm certainly no expert on the subject. The US could certainly use a P-8 or other platform to assist in locating Russian subs, and then feed the targeting data to the Ukrainians, as they have been with other sorts of targets. I suspect the Russians are creating ad hoc bastions for the subs by putting surface vessels in close proximity to keep aircraft away. The problem is what the Ukrainians could do with that intel. I don't know that they have any ASW assets available. Sure, drones could be rigged as you say to harrass the subs, but is it worth the effort? I suspect the Ukrainians would rather strike the base in Sevastapol than try to get at the subs while they're at sea.

aircooled
aircooled MegaDork
5/16/22 12:25 p.m.

I am not sure the subs provide any real threat.  There are not any Ukrainian ships to sink and the subs can only launch a few cruise missiles (which the Russians have been doing pretty regularly).  I don't think there is any target that they could hit that they cannot already hit.  

As noted, I would suspect they are moving them out of Sevastapol because they are of little use and they don't want them to become targets.  They of course could be part of another, basically unnecessary, cruise missile "sneak attack" on something.

 

Key Takeaways

  • Russian forces will likely prioritize winning the Battle of Severodonetsk over reaching the administrative borders of Donetsk Oblast.
  • Russian forces did not advance in the Slovyansk direction due to unsuccessful offensive operations in the Izyum area. Ukrainian aviation continues to operate north and east of Izyum.
  • Russian forces continued to launch artillery, air, and naval assaults on the Azovstal Steel Plant, but Mariupol defenders maintained their positions.
  • Russian forces are fortifying occupied settlements along the southern axis, indicative of Russian objectives for permanent control of the area.

    Key Takeaways

  • Russian forces will likely prioritize winning the Battle of Severodonetsk over reaching the administrative borders of Donetsk Oblast.
  • Russian forces did not advance in the Slovyansk direction due to unsuccessful offensive operations in the Izyum area. Ukrainian aviation continues to operate north and east of Izyum.
  • Russian forces continued to launch artillery, air, and naval assaults on the Azovstal Steel Plant, but Mariupol defenders maintained their positions.
  • Russian forces are fortifying occupied settlements along the southern axis, indicative of Russian objectives for permanent control of the area.

 

An interesting story has come out that a Russian unit in Ukraine was stopped from crossing back into Russia in order to reposition. That apparently is a directive. Seems likely there is some fear of desertion.

 

Some interesting vids (sorry about the Twitter links):

M777 (western artillery very recently delivered to Ukraine) being used by Ukraine: https://twitter.com/i/status/1525935459737735174

Video of Ukrainian SU27 (might be some of the planes they where able to re-activate with some provided parts) attacking Snake Island: https://twitter.com/i/status/1523027490230444035

84FSP
84FSP UberDork
5/16/22 12:49 p.m.

Interesting on the Troops being kept out of the country for fear of desertion.  I'm curious is the articles I'm reading on troops injuring themselves and their commanders to get sent home have merit.

02Pilot
02Pilot UberDork
5/16/22 12:49 p.m.

In reply to aircooled :

I don't think it's that the subs provide any new or unique threat, but more likely that the Russia stocks of land-based PGMs are running low, and with surface vessels shown to be vulnerable, the subs are a means by which the Russians can use their stocks of SLCMs against Ukrainian targets at low risk of further loss.

jmabarone
jmabarone Reader
5/16/22 1:20 p.m.
aircooled said:

 

 

 

M777 (western artillery very recently delivered to Ukraine) being used by Ukraine: https://twitter.com/i/status/1525935459737735174

If you look on the fuel tank of the FMTV (truck) that is towing that weapons system, you will see a tan covering system.  The company I work for produces that product and it is used as a passive fire suppression system.  I managed the production of that line for 4 years.

frenchyd
frenchyd MegaDork
5/16/22 1:25 p.m.
02Pilot said:

In reply to frenchyd :

IIRC, you have an ASW background, and I'm certainly no expert on the subject. The US could certainly use a P-8 or other platform to assist in locating Russian subs, and then feed the targeting data to the Ukrainians, as they have been with other sorts of targets. I suspect the Russians are creating ad hoc bastions for the subs by putting surface vessels in close proximity to keep aircraft away. The problem is what the Ukrainians could do with that intel. I don't know that they have any ASW assets available. Sure, drones could be rigged as you say to harrass the subs, but is it worth the effort? I suspect the Ukrainians would rather strike the base in Sevastapol than try to get at the subs while they're at sea.

Locating the subs is not difficult even if there is surface traffic overhead.  Different propellers  produce different acoustics.   Plus keeping surface traffic on top of subs is extremely difficult. Only a very limited amount of military ships have the ultra low frequency radios required. 
    As for why send subs out of port?   Either distraction or to ensure their safety.  
     Realize unless those are nuclear subs. Remaining underwater much over 24 hrs. Isn't possible.  And if they are nucs. Supplies will be an issue. I don't believe they have the stores room for the extended stay US subs do.  

frenchyd
frenchyd MegaDork
5/16/22 1:32 p.m.
QuasiMofo (John Brown) said:

Well we could always sell Ukraine all of our old A10 Warthogs and they could try to prove or disprove Tom Clancys Hunt for Red October.

The warthog would be pretty worthless against subs.  Oh, if they are on the surface sure it could make the sub go glug glug but can you imagine the time aloft required for that to happen?   
   Plus the Russians still have plenty of fighters which would make short work of the warthog. 

02Pilot
02Pilot UberDork
5/16/22 1:39 p.m.

In reply to frenchyd :

All the subs in the BSF are Kilo variants, AFAIK, so all diesel-electric boats. Endurance is reported to be ~45 days at sea. They only have four tubes for Kaliber, however, so I'm guessing they would be in and out of port fairly frequently. Snorkeling at night and holding off any defensive surface vessels by a few miles, I'd think they'd be pretty safe. A lot safer than Moskva was, anyway.

VolvoHeretic
VolvoHeretic GRM+ Memberand Reader
5/16/22 1:47 p.m.

Black Sea is 1.95 times as big as Great Lakes

Wikipedia: Black Sea

It seems to me that Turkey should de-militarize the Black Sea and never allow Russian warships to enter or leave even after this war is over, to bad Erdogon is such a dick and a worthless ally. Once Finland and Sweden join NATO, the Baltic Sea as well. Might as well have Spain do the same in the Mediterainian. Time to land lock Russia, that will take the wind out of Put Put's sails. smiley

02Pilot
02Pilot UberDork
5/16/22 2:07 p.m.

In reply to VolvoHeretic :

Smiley aside, that's not going to work. Aside from the obvious UNCLOS issues, Russia has plenty of other ports and shipyards to work with, and asymmetrical methods to utilize as well. Between Vladivostok and Murmansk, they've got options. I mean, if you want to escalate tensions for no meaningful gain, then sure, but I don't think that's what you're after.

VolvoHeretic
VolvoHeretic GRM+ Memberand Reader
5/16/22 2:09 p.m.
aircooled said:

Video of Ukrainian SU27 (might be some of the planes they where able to re-activate with some provided parts) attacking Snake Island: https://twitter.com/i/status/1523027490230444035

That's some pretty fancy bombing those SU-27s did. smiley

frenchyd
frenchyd MegaDork
5/16/22 2:25 p.m.
02Pilot said:

In reply to frenchyd :

All the subs in the BSF are Kilo variants, AFAIK, so all diesel-electric boats. Endurance is reported to be ~45 days at sea. They only have four tubes for Kaliber, however, so I'm guessing they would be in and out of port fairly frequently. Snorkeling at night and holding off any defensive surface vessels by a few miles, I'd think they'd be pretty safe. A lot safer than Moskva was, anyway.

To neutralize subs it would only require some mines seriptiously laid in a screening pattern in areas that are with range.  
 They could be placed by aircraft, or surface vessels 

But I doubt that's going to be the prime issue.   If Putin indeed is as sick as has been alleged time should take care of the whole issue. 
  The Russians will either leave following his passing  or be swallowed up by the Ukraine  forces. The further south they go the more vulnerable they become to supply line issues. 

   While they can attempt to supply via the Black Sea, mines and missiles will make short work of that. 

02Pilot
02Pilot UberDork
5/16/22 3:08 p.m.

In reply to frenchyd :

Ukrainian naval capabilities are very limited at this point. What is all in a day's work for the USN is likely well beyond the Ukrainian Navy's capacity to act in many situations.

Waiting for a leader to die of a rumored disease may be wishful thinking, but it's hardly the basis for sound strategic decision-making. Strategic planning, and especially operational military planning, needs to be done on the assumption that Putin is going to live, sound in mind and body, for the foreseeable future.

VolvoHeretic
VolvoHeretic GRM+ Memberand Reader
5/16/22 3:24 p.m.
02Pilot said:

In reply to VolvoHeretic :

Smiley aside, that's not going to work. Aside from the obvious UNCLOS issues, Russia has plenty of other ports and shipyards to work with, and asymmetrical methods to utilize as well. Between Vladivostok and Murmansk, they've got options. I mean, if you want to escalate tensions for no meaningful gain, then sure, but I don't think that's what you're after.

Thanks 02Pilot, I had to look up what UNCLOS meant: United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

That's a long document, what's interesting is that of the few counties that haven't ratified it, the US and Turkey are one of them, illustrated in red. I don't understand the section about the passage for warships though straights during an illegal war of aggression: 

SUBSECTION C. RULES APPLICABLE TO WARSHIPS AND OTHER GOVERNMENT SHIPS OPERATED FOR NON-COMMERCIAL PURPOSES

 

1 ... 125 126 127 128 129 ... 139
Birthdays
Our Preferred Partners
N9OUZjQ3eOwR00mBrqR6ElLOlzd0g7Vfp6mNTacrCUSzJwbT9ujuI5znkqJwmP7n