The Kremlin is ready for a war with NATO

[Mega Ultra Chicken]

Title

[Enterprofilenamehere]

100% chance both sides would lose.

Russia would no-longer exist and the rest of the world would be in a state of anywhere from much worse off to total societal collapse.

[pasa]

Hobbit XIII の投稿を引用：

yeah NATO kit is obsolete because russia fields the T14 Armata as its state of the art kit and relies on T - industrial steam punk era tanks.

Are you even more braindead than the rest of the twits here? You think T14 is sent against planes and ships? Read up on air defense or something -- or rather ask daddy to read it up for you. And hypersonic missiles. And what navy can do against them beyond shaking a finger.

What's the point of having carriers if you can't deploy them?

[Hobbit XIII]

pasa の投稿を引用：

Hobbit XIII の投稿を引用：

yeah NATO kit is obsolete because russia fields the T14 Armata as its state of the art kit and relies on T - industrial steam punk era tanks.

Are you even more braindead than the rest of the twits here? You think T14 is sent against planes and ships? Read up on air defense or something -- or rather ask daddy to read it up for you. And hypersonic missiles. And what navy can do against them beyond shaking a finger.

What's the point of having carriers if you can't deploy them?

I treat it with as much respect as toilet paper at this point.
I have answered regularly here with facts and opinions. you can look back and make your own mind up on me.

Seriously Ukraine kicking the crap out of Russian ships with drones haw haw haw Russian military haw haw haw.

[Sir Dookface McFerretballs]

Enterprofilenamehere の投稿を引用：

100% chance both sides would lose.

Russia would no-longer exist and the rest of the world would be in a state of anywhere from much worse off to total societal collapse.

HELL YEAH!

Let's gooooooooo!

I either get to become atomized by nukes or live out my leather jockstrap-wearing-in-public while driving a V8 muscle car Mad Max wasteland fantasies.

[Dom]

The notion that Russia could have any chance against 31 countries (soon 32) is just purely absurd. Bear in mind that NATO consists of 1 billion people, Russia is 140 million. The economy of Italy, alone, is worth more than the entire economy of Russia.

This considered with a fact that Russia has serious struggles against Ukraine which is a much smaller country in population and economy than Russia... sure, Russia is definitely "ready" to fight NATO. LOL

Unless Russia is suicidal, they're just bluffing and anything they say can be ignored in this regard. Madhouse screams.

[Morkonan]

Hobbit XIII の投稿を引用：

Had a quick look on the convicts and Russia saw big drop in prisoners incarcerated. They are going to the Storm-Z units which is suicide squads and maybe some will survive.
The concerning bit of this is despite the drop in prison population there has been an increase of a third in budget to the prison service. I assume they are making the prison service the first step on the civilians path to the army. I expect more laws to come into affect on what is breaking the law.

The conscripts are basically bricks in a wall without mortar. They're "functional," but not resilient or effective. They launch and catch bullets and that's more-or-less it. They don't get properly supplied, either.

Their use, IMO, now has changed from the initial opening phases. In Russia's "short victorious war" plan, they were very hastily, and widely, drawn on because the situation changed dramatically from the planned fast "blitz" to the capitol to much more of a grind. This is before regional mobilization/contribution orders were issued. Those came shortly after the initial rush of conscripting prisoners. I think the non-stupid commanders involved saw that they very quickly needed more units to hold the territory that they did occupy than originally planned for. When Regular Army and the expendable Wagner "shock troops" could not achieve objectives and heavy losses became the norm, another strategic fix seems to be the "plan."

That's what I think is going on, now. General Winter is taking to the battlefield. Outside some daring Winter offensive, which isn't completely out of the picture yet, I think everyone is waiting for the mud to pass until April. And, as per my other posts, I think Russia is stocking expendable bricks to hold the line while trying to prepare a much better trained cadre of units to flesh out what would be needed for a breakout offensive sometime after April.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67592803

Not a great article, but not many are covering this sort of thing in detail.

So, he's increasing the Russian force limits on personnel, which is effectively increasing the "soft-cap" in gaming terms that Russia can have outside of a Full Mobilization. And, it's stated the intent is to fill that through "normal recruitment" efforts... Which really means eligible Russian young males getting an email from Russian "recruiters" that says "Congratulations, Comrade, your application is accepted and you must report to Post#32 tomorrow or you will be shot." (If you're familiar with what Russian recruiters were doing early in the conflict, this makes complete sense.)

The only head-scratch is that this doesn't take effect until January 1st. But, considering that this is in less than a month for a National force increase... that's pretty hasty.

It's Mobilization-lite. It could mean that by Juny/July, they'll at least have a large cadre trained and equipped over that six/seven months for a coordinate offensive. But, only if the conscripts can hold the line. (Another confusing bit - Everyone is talking about 2024 not being a decisive year and I don't quite know why, yet.)

The problem with Russia associating with a maniac regime like NK is other countries on BRICs and elsewhere see it as a desperate move which is exactly what it is.

It doesn't matter how they perceive it if they do not act on that perception. Putin could molest a chicken in the middle of Red Square and if nobody does anything about it... it didn't happen. :)

the first article seems to ignore all the efforts of European resistances up until then. Guerrilla action is a campaign that is a lot of missions over a long period of time. German forces were constantly tied up because of nuisance resistance operatives. There is not enough recognition in my opinion of what was going on with them apart from an occasional movie designed for entertainment.
The original Operation Daybreak about Operation Anthropoid the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich really got the 'atmosphere' I felt - bleak.

I can't read the second article it wants me to disable my adblocker.

The first article was just to detail two facts

- Cutting rail lines is ineffective as they can be rebuilt rapidly.
- Only massive bombing campaigns were effective at interdicting/stopping logistics via rail.

Yes, constant harassment can tie up units being used to guard against them. But, that's also, during WWII, just dealing with "occupied" areas.

The second article is from Reuters, an extremely well-known and highly regarded global coverage general News service. I run script blockers and have never had an issue with it.

The article was to highlight effective guerrilla tactics. In that case, it was the recent behind-the-lines sabotage of rail logistics. Specifically, a rail line was sabotaged which resulted in a train being diverted to another rail and that train and the rail bridge it was now on was blow'd-the-F-up. :) This took place in Siberia... Due to the nature of the operation, its coordination, and its location far behind the lines where safety is "assumed," it accomplished a bunch of things in one/two blows. Its value went beyond strategic goals.

But, towards the front lines, individual artillery/rocket strikes against single-rail lines would be ineffective in a strategic sense. (first article) Only some kind of massive attack against a central hub, which Ukraine can not do, would have a meaningful impact. Attacking trains, themselves, which Ukraine recently did with ATACMS, are effective at reducing the impact of those supplies which were hit. (Reducing trains could be effective, but Russia has bunches.)

Historical Guerrilla Warfare - Keep in mind, situations where guerrilla action were successful relied on relief from a much stronger formal military force. That they could contribute to harassment is acknowledged, but that is not a significant variable relative to "victory." (Open Rebellion is a different creature)

Not off the top of my head unless you count the fact Ukraine stood its ground and the type of warfare against the Russian Navy has been successful from which an 'irregular' unit can do.
A perceived normal civilian is vital to any action because of the intelligence they can send to a unit of where a soldier is having a smoke or having a drink. To where they have seen a fresh batch of troops making their way along a quiet road.
Only way Russia knows how to actually take a place is by blowing it into submission at this point and unless they have a free reign all over Ukraine they will find it a difficult task to say the least not to mention the cost of remodelling towns and cities in its own image.

Ukraine does have plenty of civilian intelligence in occupied regions, but also has a full-spectrum of Western Intel.

the F 16s , they will have the proper infrastructure and personnel in place otherwise they would not be able to operate I assumed this was a given.

It's not a "given." They will have at least the minimum necessary, though. That is a given. But, to conduct something within their full capability takes more than that. They could operate as successful interceptors for the most part, but might have trouble operating in front-line areas. I don't think they will be used as some sort of hammer-blow, but will fill in as an extra variable that Russia must consider, requiring them to be a bit more careful.

A article I came across last night that sums it up fairly well: https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/29/europe/ukraine-f-16-fighter-jets-intl/index.html

...US Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall echoed that assessment, saying the F-16 “will give Ukrainians an increment of capabilities that they don’t have right now. But it’s not going to be a dramatic game-changer.” ...

Russian pilots do not have the resources at their disposal to do much training anyway. They at one point didn't even have proper navigational equipment relying on android with google maps in their cockpits.
the Ukrainian pilots will be getting more training on better equipment with better weapons and better technology to do everything including the act of shooting things.

I saw that vid, too. :) But, the Ukrainian pilots will NOT be getting more training than their Russian counterparts - They're using an aircraft they've only had a few months of training in. I do agree that Russian pilot training is below the standards of many in the West and they don't get as much air-time.

If you have that kind of kit you are going to protect that kind of kit so there will be more anti aircraft which knows not to shoot friendlies.

Western / NATO kit is precious because it is advanced and not for wars of attrition, Russian kit is precious because they are replacing their 'crap' with dwindling resources for 'crap'.
NATO could if it really ran low either produce cheaper variants or give the go ahead to strike inside Russia with NATO kit and that would really upset the Kremlin's morning cornflakes.

There is no doubt that NATO aircraft/et al, is superior tech. We've now seen Russia's gear in action and it fails to impress. However, a ton of that is because the major, highlight-reels, efforts have generally been conducted by poorly supplied units or in efforts not well designed for this kind of conflict. It's now a fight of fixed positions and trenches blanketed by artillery.

One thing that I wanted to point out - You had mentioned the superiority of the F-16. Yes, I agree wholeheartedly that it's an outstanding aircraft. But, in this conflict, they are not going to be maneuvering up to the cockpit of the enemy aircraft and punching them in the face - They will be using air-to-air missiles. As a weapons platform, the F-16 is very capable and can fulfill a wide variety of missions. But, when we see people in the know comparing performance, we have to consider the actual weapons being used - Ukraine will absolutely not be getting the very latest restricted-tech munitions from the US. That means they will likely be getting arms that Russia knows about and may have developed some tactics/counters against, too. He who fires first, wins. (Usually.)

I am not so worried about the F-16s in a defensive/responsive role - They will be very effective. I just push back against the notion they'll be some kind of "game changer." They won't and shouldn't be used with that expectation.

(I don't know what they're getting atm, so will try to look for it and if it's worth talking about, will come back with a report. :))

Edit- New saber-rattling against Moldova, linked because I mentioned them awhile back:

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-issues-ominous-warning-about-next-victim-1848565

A different Russian Foreign Minister than the one that announced the OP topic, but the messaging should be clear.

[Morkonan]

Birds の投稿を引用：

helicopters are useful for air transport and light fire support. they're too slow and fragile to be fast-attack craft, and it takes quite a pilot to even try. they're more useful as configurations for heavy weapon drones, which so far can't actuate a turret and also fly at the same time. so it's unclear why everyone has been investing in fast attack helicotpers for 50 years.

aside from it being an expensive and difficult type of mecha to produce, test, design, engineer, or
condemn. making it useful primarily as a 'disposable research' commodity.

Uh...

A "fast attack" helicopter is basically a fast (as is reasonably possible due to physics) piece of flying artillery with a phat machine gun on it... This is a highly desirable bit of specialty equipment that is very flexible. They also just need a relatively flat spot to land//take-off from, making them great for tight fits.

But, they would not be used very often in uncontrolled airspace. In Ukraine, they have been used by both sides with some effect, but they are very vulnerable to manpads and enemy aircraft, so it's basically a judgement call based on need. (Covert/special ops an exception - Like Ukraine's operation at the outset where they attacked a Russian refinery. That operation netted some great morale hits, if nothing else, and those have value.)

Note: This conflict definitely highlights the usefulness/impact of "drones." Drones have been around a long time, but the impact of squad-level drones for intel and anti-personnel/armor, as well as "statement making" like bombing the Kremlin, has pushed them up to the top of the headlines. Everyone's watching to see what can be done with them in a real fight.

[Hobbit XIII]

Morkonan の投稿を引用：

Hobbit XIII の投稿を引用：

Had a quick look on the convicts and Russia saw big drop in prisoners incarcerated. They are going to the Storm-Z units which is suicide squads and maybe some will survive.
The concerning bit of this is despite the drop in prison population there has been an increase of a third in budget to the prison service. I assume they are making the prison service the first step on the civilians path to the army. I expect more laws to come into affect on what is breaking the law.

The conscripts are basically bricks in a wall without mortar. They're "functional," but not resilient or effective. They launch and catch bullets and that's more-or-less it. They don't get properly supplied, either.

Their use, IMO, now has changed from the initial opening phases. In Russia's "short victorious war" plan, they were very hastily, and widely, drawn on because the situation changed dramatically from the planned fast "blitz" to the capitol to much more of a grind. This is before regional mobilization/contribution orders were issued. Those came shortly after the initial rush of conscripting prisoners. I think the non-stupid commanders involved saw that they very quickly needed more units to hold the territory that they did occupy than originally planned for. When Regular Army and the expendable Wagner "shock troops" could not achieve objectives and heavy losses became the norm, another strategic fix seems to be the "plan."

That's what I think is going on, now. General Winter is taking to the battlefield. Outside some daring Winter offensive, which isn't completely out of the picture yet, I think everyone is waiting for the mud to pass until April. And, as per my other posts, I think Russia is stocking expendable bricks to hold the line while trying to prepare a much better trained cadre of units to flesh out what would be needed for a breakout offensive sometime after April.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67592803

Not a great article, but not many are covering this sort of thing in detail.

So, he's increasing the Russian force limits on personnel, which is effectively increasing the "soft-cap" in gaming terms that Russia can have outside of a Full Mobilization. And, it's stated the intent is to fill that through "normal recruitment" efforts... Which really means eligible Russian young males getting an email from Russian "recruiters" that says "Congratulations, Comrade, your application is accepted and you must report to Post#32 tomorrow or you will be shot." (If you're familiar with what Russian recruiters were doing early in the conflict, this makes complete sense.)

The only head-scratch is that this doesn't take effect until January 1st. But, considering that this is in less than a month for a National force increase... that's pretty hasty.

It's Mobilization-lite. It could mean that by Juny/July, they'll at least have a large cadre trained and equipped over that six/seven months for a coordinate offensive. But, only if the conscripts can hold the line. (Another confusing bit - Everyone is talking about 2024 not being a decisive year and I don't quite know why, yet.)

The problem with Russia associating with a maniac regime like NK is other countries on BRICs and elsewhere see it as a desperate move which is exactly what it is.

It doesn't matter how they perceive it if they do not act on that perception. Putin could molest a chicken in the middle of Red Square and if nobody does anything about it... it didn't happen. :)

the first article seems to ignore all the efforts of European resistances up until then. Guerrilla action is a campaign that is a lot of missions over a long period of time. German forces were constantly tied up because of nuisance resistance operatives. There is not enough recognition in my opinion of what was going on with them apart from an occasional movie designed for entertainment.
The original Operation Daybreak about Operation Anthropoid the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich really got the 'atmosphere' I felt - bleak.

I can't read the second article it wants me to disable my adblocker.

The first article was just to detail two facts

- Cutting rail lines is ineffective as they can be rebuilt rapidly.
- Only massive bombing campaigns were effective at interdicting/stopping logistics via rail.

Yes, constant harassment can tie up units being used to guard against them. But, that's also, during WWII, just dealing with "occupied" areas.

The second article is from Reuters, an extremely well-known and highly regarded global coverage general News service. I run script blockers and have never had an issue with it.

The article was to highlight effective guerrilla tactics. In that case, it was the recent behind-the-lines sabotage of rail logistics. Specifically, a rail line was sabotaged which resulted in a train being diverted to another rail and that train and the rail bridge it was now on was blow'd-the-F-up. :) This took place in Siberia... Due to the nature of the operation, its coordination, and its location far behind the lines where safety is "assumed," it accomplished a bunch of things in one/two blows. Its value went beyond strategic goals.

But, towards the front lines, individual artillery/rocket strikes against single-rail lines would be ineffective in a strategic sense. (first article) Only some kind of massive attack against a central hub, which Ukraine can not do, would have a meaningful impact. Attacking trains, themselves, which Ukraine recently did with ATACMS, are effective at reducing the impact of those supplies which were hit. (Reducing trains could be effective, but Russia has bunches.)

Historical Guerrilla Warfare - Keep in mind, situations where guerrilla action were successful relied on relief from a much stronger formal military force. That they could contribute to harassment is acknowledged, but that is not a significant variable relative to "victory." (Open Rebellion is a different creature)

Not off the top of my head unless you count the fact Ukraine stood its ground and the type of warfare against the Russian Navy has been successful from which an 'irregular' unit can do.
A perceived normal civilian is vital to any action because of the intelligence they can send to a unit of where a soldier is having a smoke or having a drink. To where they have seen a fresh batch of troops making their way along a quiet road.
Only way Russia knows how to actually take a place is by blowing it into submission at this point and unless they have a free reign all over Ukraine they will find it a difficult task to say the least not to mention the cost of remodelling towns and cities in its own image.

Ukraine does have plenty of civilian intelligence in occupied regions, but also has a full-spectrum of Western Intel.

the F 16s , they will have the proper infrastructure and personnel in place otherwise they would not be able to operate I assumed this was a given.

It's not a "given." They will have at least the minimum necessary, though. That is a given. But, to conduct something within their full capability takes more than that. They could operate as successful interceptors for the most part, but might have trouble operating in front-line areas. I don't think they will be used as some sort of hammer-blow, but will fill in as an extra variable that Russia must consider, requiring them to be a bit more careful.

A article I came across last night that sums it up fairly well: https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/29/europe/ukraine-f-16-fighter-jets-intl/index.html

...US Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall echoed that assessment, saying the F-16 “will give Ukrainians an increment of capabilities that they don’t have right now. But it’s not going to be a dramatic game-changer.” ...

Russian pilots do not have the resources at their disposal to do much training anyway. They at one point didn't even have proper navigational equipment relying on android with google maps in their cockpits.
the Ukrainian pilots will be getting more training on better equipment with better weapons and better technology to do everything including the act of shooting things.

I saw that vid, too. :) But, the Ukrainian pilots will NOT be getting more training than their Russian counterparts - They're using an aircraft they've only had a few months of training in. I do agree that Russian pilot training is below the standards of many in the West and they don't get as much air-time.

If you have that kind of kit you are going to protect that kind of kit so there will be more anti aircraft which knows not to shoot friendlies.

Western / NATO kit is precious because it is advanced and not for wars of attrition, Russian kit is precious because they are replacing their 'crap' with dwindling resources for 'crap'.
NATO could if it really ran low either produce cheaper variants or give the go ahead to strike inside Russia with NATO kit and that would really upset the Kremlin's morning cornflakes.

There is no doubt that NATO aircraft/et al, is superior tech. We've now seen Russia's gear in action and it fails to impress. However, a ton of that is because the major, highlight-reels, efforts have generally been conducted by poorly supplied units or in efforts not well designed for this kind of conflict. It's now a fight of fixed positions and trenches blanketed by artillery.

One thing that I wanted to point out - You had mentioned the superiority of the F-16. Yes, I agree wholeheartedly that it's an outstanding aircraft. But, in this conflict, they are not going to be maneuvering up to the cockpit of the enemy aircraft and punching them in the face - They will be using air-to-air missiles. As a weapons platform, the F-16 is very capable and can fulfill a wide variety of missions. But, when we see people in the know comparing performance, we have to consider the actual weapons being used - Ukraine will absolutely not be getting the very latest restricted-tech munitions from the US. That means they will likely be getting arms that Russia knows about and may have developed some tactics/counters against, too. He who fires first, wins. (Usually.)

I am not so worried about the F-16s in a defensive/responsive role - They will be very effective. I just push back against the notion they'll be some kind of "game changer." They won't and shouldn't be used with that expectation.

(I don't know what they're getting atm, so will try to look for it and if it's worth talking about, will come back with a report. :))

Edit- New saber-rattling against Moldova, linked because I mentioned them awhile back:

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-issues-ominous-warning-about-next-victim-1848565

A different Russian Foreign Minister than the one that announced the OP topic, but the messaging should be clear.

Couple of points and I'll answer in full later or tomorrow :

You cannot tell me hitting tracks is not effective especially when dealing with distances with Russia and Ukraine.
On top of other actions of ungentlemanly warfare and the supply of NATO equipment Which Russia would not be able to stop.
Just look at what happens if a postal train is delayed / vanished in a non warring country.
Playing Devil's advocate a bit too much there.

Secondly it is a given with the F 16s they are expensive pieces of kit and they will be treated as such. They are not going to be treated as something disposable.
The F 16s will be able to get on with completing missions to assist ground troops a lot easier from the Mig 31s.
The Mig 31 is a spiteful one but with the F 16 the Mig 31 it will not have impunity to disrupt Ukrainian objectives.

The biggest problem will be again Zelensky's approach to warfare and not focusing in certain areas and focusing on silly kill zones instead.

[❤ Sly Succubus ❤]

Enterprofilenamehere の投稿を引用：

100% chance both sides would lose.

Russia would no-longer exist and the rest of the world would be in a state of anywhere from much worse off to total societal collapse.

Reminds me of how in the Fallout Universe its confirmed despite the total nuclear war that took place, several nations were not even targeted with one of them being the majority of Europe as a whole, which came as a result of the EU disbanding and infighting taking place that most of Europe was deemed as not a worthy target. I also saw some lore that suggested large parts of both Africa and South America were spared as well, but some of both countries largest cities were still hit.

It goes as far to explain that while they would of been shot, they are not targets of destruction because simply they were not the enemy, which I guess makes sense, it was China and the United States that fired off nuclear weapons, ironically also in Fallout, the Cold War never took place and Russia was extremely close to the united states, to the point one could say the Red Scare is not even a thing in their universe...

[Auckes]

Pieshaman の投稿を引用：

you talk a lot without saying anything that make sense.
how can I even say something back when you literaly say nonsensical things.

You cannot say anything back, unless you bothered to keep track of various events the world all over. Or you had arguments to counter the things i mentioned.

Worry not though, i am with you. Soon, reality is going to make you comprehend fully what i am saying. You must be one of those poor souls sitting on their couch, thinking we are back in the 90s or something, with USA being the only superpower around and its tech top notch, worldwide... The world is changing, the status quo shifted. You are also going to herald the Dawn of the Multipolar World, friend; and that is a promise!

[Hobbit XIII]

Auckes の投稿を引用：

Pieshaman の投稿を引用：

you talk a lot without saying anything that make sense.
how can I even say something back when you literaly say nonsensical things.

You cannot say anything back, unless you bothered to keep track of various events the world all over. Or you had arguments to counter the things i mentioned.

Worry not though, i am with you. Soon, reality is going to make you comprehend fully what i am saying. You must be one of those poor souls sitting on their couch, thinking we are back in the 90s or something, with USA being the only superpower around and its tech top notch, worldwide... The world is changing, the status quo shifted. You are also going to herald the Dawn of the Multipolar World, friend; and that is a promise!

ok mr man tell us this top tech of the Russian forces that will appear on the battlefield

[Yavin Shikanoko]

BlackDragon875 の投稿を引用：

Title

Kermit the frog

[❤ Sly Succubus ❤]

Auckes の投稿を引用：

You are also going to herald the Dawn of the Multipolar World, friend; and that is a promise!

Multipolar....okay, only Putin has literally said that at all and he said he'd make the damn planet itself Multipolar, do you know what that means?

Let me run it down for you.
Multipolar means no one has more power then another person, there's only one UNIFIED NATION, one UNIFIED COMPANY and one UNIFIED MILITARY that controls earth, seriously does no one grasp that all Multipolar means is that Putin literally said "I WILL CONTROL ALL OF EARTH!" because thats what Multipolar basically means.

Anyone with a brain knows that the last Warfare Multipolar was the Axis Powers when Hitler wanted to control Lebensraum and Lebensraum was going to be his Multipolar nation (IE, No one has more power then another person)

What happened instead? World War 2.

So Putin said the famous words every last leader on this planet has before committing to global genocide, thats lovely.

The dude may as well of said "I have the power to make every nation on this planet a super power with the power of friendship and rainbows" because thats what a Multipolar planet is, no nation has anymore power then another one...that ironically includes Russia's enemies and Ukraine itself, the irony is that Putin can't even keep his own mind straight either it seems

[Morkonan]

Hobbit XIII の投稿を引用：

Couple of points and I'll answer in full later or tomorrow :

That's fine. You can answer to whatever points you wish, to, as well, or whatever - This isn't a simple subject and I always try to be a bit... more complete in my replies.

You cannot tell me hitting tracks is not effective especially when dealing with distances with Russia and Ukraine.

I can, will, and did, :) also supplying a link about the history of such actions in WWII - Taking out individual tracks, which is what this is about, in ineffective due to how rapidly they can be replaced. Only doing so on a large scale, which Ukraine can not do, is effective in regards to disrupting logistics as part of a wartime strategy. That was also the conclusion of that article and the notables that contributed. It's just... true.

...Just look at what happens if a postal train is delayed / vanished in a non warring country.
Playing Devil's advocate a bit too much there.

A "Postal" train? There's no way that's an equitable comparison - We're talking about a war-time effort with bajillions of monies and a huge infrastructure purpose-built to preserve rail logistics in a war... There's no equitable comparison. Not only does the repair crew have to get there ASAP, if they don't fix it ASAP people die and they get shot for not fixing it on time...

Secondly it is a given with the F 16s they are expensive pieces of kit and they will be treated as such. They are not going to be treated as something disposable.
The F 16s will be able to get on with completing missions to assist ground troops a lot easier from the Mig 31s.

I don't think F-16's will be assisting with much ground-support unless the situation is very dire or Ukraine no longer has assets able to do that.

The Mig 31 is a spiteful one but with the F 16 the Mig 31 it will not have impunity to disrupt Ukrainian objectives.

I agree in principle, provided the F-16s can be in place to be a threat. Again, the practical, operations, non-super-tech considerations are fundamentally part of how the F-16s can and will be used. This is why military minds caution that we should not have excessive expectations for their impact on this war at this time.

If they have to be based spread out, far into Western Ukraine, their ability to respond tactically as interceptors is going to be limited. If they can't refuel by air, they have to land and that means they have to have a clear, clean, ready-to-go landing field not filled with holes. They then have to refuel and take off before they are spotted and that landing field, now in the forward operating area, is hit by enemy cluster munitions if it hasn't already been bombed by whatever the Russian equivalent of a Durandal is. (Anti-Runway penetrating bomb).

This is "a" list of Ukrainian air bases: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ukrainian_airbases

Not all accommodate fixed-wing aircraft. A good many are in Central Ukraine. There are some in Western Ukraine, however. You can consider the operational range of an unrefueled F-16 at 500 miles and twice that with drop-tanks. Based just somewhere in Western Ukraine, let's say, they could reach most of Ukraine aside from Crimea and the far East/Southeast. But, could they coordinate to do so in strength if needed? Dunno. They also need to be based closer in order to intercept. They are interceptors and can reach the necessary speeds, but that still takes more fuel, so they can't do that all the way from the far West and those sorts of interceptors would have to be based more centrally at proper airbases that are within Russian striking distance.

This is promising: https://news.yahoo.com/russian-attacks-ukrainian-air-bases-014200332.html

But, Russia is really going to be trying to target those F-16s hard. New AA/AM defenses may help a great deal.

The biggest problem will be again Zelensky's approach to warfare and not focusing in certain areas and focusing on silly kill zones instead.

I don't think Zelensky is an operational commander, here. He may put emphasis on political targets as needed, but even those would be weighed by military practicality by his commanders. What the battle-space is and how they're designating targets and operational areas isn't something I know about.

[Hobbit XIII]

Morkonan の投稿を引用：

Hobbit XIII の投稿を引用：

Couple of points and I'll answer in full later or tomorrow :

That's fine. You can answer to whatever points you wish, to, as well, or whatever - This isn't a simple subject and I always try to be a bit... more complete in my replies.

You cannot tell me hitting tracks is not effective especially when dealing with distances with Russia and Ukraine.

I can, will, and did, also supplying a link about the history of such actions in WWII - Taking out individual tracks, which is what this is about, in ineffective due to how rapidly they can be replaced. Only doing so on a large scale, which Ukraine can not do, is effective in regards to disrupting logistics as part of a wartime strategy. It's just... true.

...Just look at what happens if a postal train is delayed / vanished in a non warring country.
Playing Devil's advocate a bit too much there.

A "Postal" train? There's no way that's an equitable comparison - We're talking about a war-time effort with bajillions of monies and a huge infrastructure purpose-built to preserve rail logistics in a war... There's no equitable comparison. Not only does the repair crew have to get there ASAP, if they don't fix it ASAP people die and they get shot for not fixing it on time...

Secondly it is a given with the F 16s they are expensive pieces of kit and they will be treated as such. They are not going to be treated as something disposable.
The F 16s will be able to get on with completing missions to assist ground troops a lot easier from the Mig 31s.

I don't think F-16's will be assisting with much ground-support unless the situation is very dire or Ukraine no longer has assets able to do that.

The Mig 31 is a spiteful one but with the F 16 the Mig 31 it will not have impunity to disrupt Ukrainian objectives.

I agree in principle, provided the F-16s can be in place to be a threat. Again, the practical, operations, non-super-tech considerations are fundamentally part of how the F-16s can and will be used. This is why military minds caution that we should not have excessive expectations for their impact on this war at this time.

If they have to be based spread out, far into Western Ukraine, their ability to respond tactically as interceptors is going to be limited. If they can't refuel by air, they have to land and that means they have to have a clear, clean, ready-to-go landing field not filled with holes. They then have to refuel and take off before they are spotted and that landing field, now in the forward operating area, is hit by enemy cluster munitions if it hasn't already been bombed by whatever the Russian equivalent of a Durandal is. (Anti-Runway penetrating bomb).

This is "a" list of Ukrainian air bases: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ukrainian_airbases

Not all accommodate fixed-wing aircraft. A good many are in Central Ukraine. There are some in Western Ukraine, however. You can consider the operational range of an unrefueled F-16 at 500 miles and twice that with drop-tanks. Based just somewhere in Western Ukraine, let's say, they could reach most of Ukraine aside from Crimea and the far East/Southeast. But, could they coordinate to do so in strength if needed? Dunno. They also need to be based closer in order to intercept. They are interceptors and can reach the necessary speeds, but that still takes more fuel, so they can't do that all the way from the far West and those sorts of interceptors would have to be based more centrally at proper airbases that are within Russian striking distance.

This is promising: https://news.yahoo.com/russian-attacks-ukrainian-air-bases-014200332.html

But, Russia is really going to be trying to target those F-16s hard. New AA/AM defenses may help a great deal.

The biggest problem will be again Zelensky's approach to warfare and not focusing in certain areas and focusing on silly kill zones instead.

I don't think Zelensky is an operational commander, here. He may put emphasis on political targets as needed, but even those would be weighed by military practicality by his commanders. What the battle-space is and how they're designating targets and operational areas isn't something I know about.

And i'm out of this conversation.
Your trying to tell me about guerrilla warfare and all its vulnerabilities and tell me about what the Ukrainians can do and cannot do. And that basically every other guerrilla fighter / ungentlemanly warfare type (do you even know what that is?) is a failure because you say so.

I'll bow out and admit defeat due to attritional warfare on my keyboard is taking game time away.

Ok.
I'm here to game and I'll let this go and you can naysmitch to somebody else.