Humor Random Comments Thread

[N_Molson]

It's going to be a long winter.

I don't think so. If Russia really wanted to attack, they would have done that before we even knew about it. The element of surprise is essential to modern warfare : that's the difference between WWI and WWII, when Germany defeated in a few days the French army which held strong fortifications and was superior on paper.

 

[clipper]

I don't think so. If Russia really wanted to attack, they would have done that before we even knew about it.

It's practically impossible to conduct a large-scale invasion of another sovereign state without everyone and their grandmother knowing about it. Aside from all the intelligence-gathering tools available to nation-states today from cyberwarfare all the way to recon satellites, moving hundreds of thousands of troops and a few dozen armored battalions is a massive undertaking both in terms of logistics and financing, which is why you'd never do it unless you were preparing to actually use it, more so when your economy can't exactly afford the luxury of power projection like the US does by constantly maintaining carrier battle groups in every major sea/ocean out there.

The element of surprise is essential to modern warfare : that's the difference between WWI and WWII, when Germany defeated in a few days the French army which held strong fortifications and was superior on paper.

In both of those conflicts dirigibles and slow-moving piston-powered aircraft were literally the most advanced tools of strategic and tactical reconnaissance, so I'm not really sure how rational it is to use either of those as case studies for how conventional 21st century wars can unfold.

 

[N_Molson]

more so when your economy can't exactly afford the luxury of power projection like the US does by constantly maintaining carrier battle groups in every major sea/ocean out there.

But Russia has common borders with Ukraine. There's no need for "power projection" at all. One country is supposed to be sovereign on its own territory and deploy troop the way they like.

In both of those conflicts dirigibles and slow-moving piston-powered aircraft were literally the most advanced tools of strategic and tactical reconnaissance

No, both Axis and Allies got most of their information through spies networks. This is the oldest way of the world to get intel, and it remains true nowadays. Sure military satellites help, but the first people that are going to know that something is going on are infiltrated spies. And there's plenty of them both in Russia and USA, with Europe being a big spy hub.

 

[Urwumpe]

I don't think so. If Russia really wanted to attack, they would have done that before we even knew about it. The element of surprise is essential to modern warfare : that's the difference between WWI and WWII, when Germany defeated in a few days the French army which held strong fortifications and was superior on paper.

It was WAY more complex than that. Don't forget the phony war / Drôle de guerre, which is essentially the situation we have now.

What defeated France quickly were three things: Past heroes insisting on fighting a second WWI (The Germans had been friendly enough to do that, but ignored the Maginot line until overrunning the Seine line), the devil in the detail (like overly complicated fuel logistics) and retreating critical units all the time, hoping for better fighting conditions that never came.

There is an animation somewhere, that showed how German essentially really just followed the retreating heavy tank units of France and only had battles with the French heavy tanks, when the French tanks had been unable to retreat. The prejudice about French warfare has a grain of truth there. The Germans NEVER had been great strategic geniuses or had the better army at all. The allies simply let them win by making really poor decisions early in the war and never really recovering from the following blows. The allies did even KNOW the German attack plan, and still they considered their own positions far inferiour to the Germans - one small counterattack, one small bit of resistance more could have thrown the Germans off-balance.

What to learn from that for today?

1. Never expect your opponent to play by your rules.
2. Never retreat late to new defensive positions.
3. Never expect static defenses to win a war, especially when aircraft and paratroopers are involved.
4. Don't expect allies to sacrifice their soldiers for you - they will usually fight for their own lives first and retreat as they want.
5. If you have intelligence reports confirming an eminent attack, don't reduce the readiness of your troops, when the expected attack doesn't come on the expected day. It will come.
6. Don't hold back your best assets until it is too late.
7. A superiority in numbers does not exist, even a smaller army can win a war, when the bigger army is fighting multiple different wars at the same time.

Russia can and will likely attack. And it will do so, when our attention is not on the Ukraine. I still hope for everything just being a huge gamble, but the past weeks just increased the commitment of Russia to an attack. Every day the preparations go on, it will get harder for Russia to return to normal.

And I see little chance of a peaceful diplomatic deal, that will not be a defeat for the west. Russia keeps everything, but has to pay nothing in return? Appeasement? Or Russia gives up the Donbas basin, by dropping their "consultants" like a hot potato and risking the wrath of the many Russian nationalists? This could literally kill Putin, its an unrealistic scenario. Everything stays like it is, but with more soldiers waiting for the other side to try deciding this war or exploit an apparant weakness of the opponent?

The only chance I see for this to end with minor blood shed would be NATO and especially Europe going all in. Only in this case, Russia could keep Crimea, loose a lot of the Donbas basin, but can still sell this as a victory. Neither NATO or Russia would be involved in the fighting officially, but both won't be far away. We would be back in a cold war for a while, Ukraine could join the west and NATO, we could pretend to still have some amount of spine left, despite practically being forced into a carthatic conflict by Russia that we didn't need.

The war won't end because Russia or NATO won, but because China uses our distraction to try annexing Taiwan, forcing the west to either accept poor terms for a cease fire or have to let China gain full strategic control over the west pacific. And in this case, the strategic interests of the USA will decide it. And the European public will be busy watching football, happy that this Ukraine distraction is over before the beginning of the knockout phase, so only a small number of interlectuals will complain.

 

[N_Molson]

The difference with 1940 is that we're literally cooking on Russian natural gas and 90% of the things we own were manufactured in China. It works both ways though, Russia needs badly the income from natural gas and China would collapse if it suddenly could not sell its goods anymore. So a "real" war, even without nuclear weapons, would be devastating.

 

[MaxBuzz]

during the annexation of Crimea to Russia (the only event where there is an order to advance the armed forces), not a single person died
historically, extremely warlike peoples were located in the Crimea

 

[Linguofreak]

It's our bloody neural nets that's causing most of the issues, emotions are merely one input into that.

That's not quite right: emotions are as much an output as they are an input. Call them an intermediate processing stage. Of course, one thing that AI neural nets don't replicate is the various hormonal feedback loops, which are significant to emotional state.

 

[jedidia]

Of course, one thing that AI neural nets don't replicate is the various hormonal feedback loops, which are significant to emotional state.

True. instead, you get direct feedback loops between reward and behavior without an intermediate processing stage... (don't think they found a satisfactory solution for that problem yet, but I'm not up to date on cutting-edge developments).

 

[steph]

The only chance I see for this to end with minor blood shed would be NATO and especially Europe going all in. Only in this case, Russia could keep Crimea, loose a lot of the Donbas basin, but can still sell this as a victory. Neither NATO or Russia would be involved in the fighting officially, but both won't be far away. We would be back in a cold war for a while, Ukraine could join the west and NATO, we could pretend to still have some amount of spine left, despite practically being forced into a carthatic conflict by Russia that we didn't need.

The war won't end because Russia or NATO won, but because China uses our distraction to try annexing Taiwan, forcing the west to either accept poor terms for a cease fire or have to let China gain full strategic control over the west pacific. And in this case, the strategic interests of the USA will decide it. And the European public will be busy watching football, happy that this Ukraine distraction is over before the beginning of the knockout phase, so only a small number of interlectuals will complain.

The difference with 1940 is that we're literally cooking on Russian natural gas and 90% of the things we own were manufactured in China. It works both ways though, Russia needs badly the income from natural gas and China would collapse if it suddenly could not sell its goods anymore. So a "real" war, even without nuclear weapons, would be devastating.

There are 'a few' ominous signs, including Russia's increasing war reserves (gold etc), and China seemingly buying up a huge food stock on the international market, which might be a sign of them preparing for a long war 'cough' nuclear winter 'cough'. Also, they seem to be preparing for getting out of SWIFT and doing their own thing. How possible such a trade bubble would be and how much it would hurt the west , I don't know .

As for the rest, it's anyone's guess. Rumour has it Vladdy boy has some quite backward nationalist advisers. He might have thought NATO would cave in much more easily, so he sort of backed himself into a corner by making unreasonable demands to which the west said no, and now he has to deliver. I still don't see how utterly alienating Ukraine would work for him in the long run. Eastern Nato flank is already weakened , with Hungary being almost openly 'flipped', and the rest having their own nationalist, anti-EU and NATO movements that might turn the tide at any moment. Not to mention Erdogan's dillema .

I'm not sure sending in more troops in Romania and Bulgaria is an entirely good idea, as they might find themselves cut off if stuff really hits the fan. And if he decides to up the ante again, I'm not sure we can rule out a preemptive nuclear strike on a Nato base either. That is if it's true that both Russia and China are aching for a first strike precedent that would simplify a lot of stuff with Taiwan etc . He can amass troops all he want in full certainty that the west won't strike, but NATO troops doing the same might turn them into sitting ducks .

And let's not forget the Suwalki gap. Would fit the habit of distracting the attention. While the main force keeps revving up at Ukraine's border, a smaller one steps in to 'protect the russian speakers' there and suddenly Kaliningrad's linked up and the baltics are isolated . Not to mention that this would serve to prevent completely alienating Ukraine (e.g. Russia would never truly invade as they're 'their own' ) . Or maybe war on both fronts if they think it's doable and/or Chinese troops step in, though I don't know if that is doable given the distance and the Taiwan thing.

In a Russia-NATO War, the Suwalki Gap Could Decide World War III

The “gap” is a natural chokepoint Russia could potentially assail from multiple directions to pinch off columns of NATO troops attempting to reinforce the Baltics.

nationalinterest.org

 

[Urwumpe]

Also, quite many Russian troops are gathering in Belarus, strangely not there, where the Russian government claims them to be deployed, but much closer to the Ukrainian border, only 200 km north of Kiev, with only the Chernobyl exclusive zone in the way. And that should be only a minor problem for any army. The Russians could be at the Ukrainian capital in merely 6 hours. No, they are not mirroring NATO troops in the north and west of Belarus.

Yeah, it would be the least surprising attack ever. But many here are busy rejecting even the remote possibility that this could happen. Of course, the Russians could only be in Belarus for planting trees and singing Kumbaya. But what if not? What will we do then?

If we leave the job to the Ukrainians alone, they will have no chance. Either they try to delay in the north, and get rooted in the east. They can tolerate this major risk in the north, maybe sacrifice the capital, and still get a major paddling and eventually lose it all.

And now we have the Memorandum of Budapest saying that US, UK and Russia all promised to never let this happen. So, we have to. If we annouce NATO troops to be stationed in Ukraine, Russia will have to strike or back off. If the troops are there, Russia would be risking a war it can't win and would have to negotiate.

 

[TheShuttleExperience]

Well, we might be AI already? ? The modern Homo sapiens appears to be anything but "natural". We live in an almost entirely artificial world that we create by ourselves. And I am typing this in a forum that actually doesn't exist, if there is no electrical power for my computer and the OF server. For some reason our brain is far beyond the capabilities of any other species on this celestial body and very far beyond this solar system. I think there are two very common misconceptions. One: (other) animals are "better" than we are (unless they get a brain like Homo sapiens obviously...). Two: AI would be better than we are (but AI would be made by us and nobody else...).

 

[jedidia]

We live in an almost entirely artificial world that we create by ourselves.

I strongly contest that point. We have barely scratched the surface of this world (quite literally as well as figuratively), and that not even in most places. calling it "almost entirely artificial" is probably more wrong than an alien landing in the Sahara declaring it a "desert planet"...

And I am typing this in a forum that actually doesn't exist,

Also, as a software developer, I resent the notion of virtual things "not existing". If it takes time and energy to build, it obviosuly exists.

 

[N_Molson]

There are 'a few' ominous signs, including Russia's increasing war reserves (gold etc), and China seemingly buying up a huge food stock on the international market, which might be a sign of them preparing for a long war 'cough' nuclear winter 'cough'.

I don't really buy that - so to say -, having a few months of food surplus won't make any difference in case of a nuclear war. If that happens civilization as we mean it will end, there won't be anything like an organized state for a loong time. I have the feeling we are getting used to the idea of a nuclear war to the point it is really getting dangerous.

 

[N_Molson]

Yeah, it would be the least surprising attack ever. But many here are busy rejecting even the remote possibility that this could happen. Of course, the Russians could only be in Belarus for planting trees and singing Kumbaya. But what if not? What will we do then?

I think we're in the realm of wild fiction. I have the feeling you're going to keep your job and roam around this forum for many years to come, like it or not If not... it won't change anything. You can ready a backpack with 2 weeks of supplies and iodine tabs, if it helps you to sleep better.

I also have the strong feeling it won't end well for Ukraine. Bad place to be those days, sad to say. Russia can't hand it over to NATO, that's too "next door". I also don't think it is very smart to be willing to expand NATO to ex-SSSR countries, which is France and Germany official diplomatic stance. From Russia's perspective it is a very aggressive move, an insult and a threat, and that's something everyone should understand.

My way would be to have some kind of "neutral commonwealth" from Finland to the Balkans, nations that accept its not their interest or own good to take any side from a military standpoint (given that they actually are between a hammer and an anvil), which doesn't prevent any kind of trade agreements or some discount on natural gas flowing through.

 

[jedidia]

I don't think he means nuclear war. I think it's pretty save to say that nuclear war won't happen until a nuclear armed nation is being attacked directly and sees no chance of surviving.

 

[MaxBuzz]

canopies to protect the tank from NATO anti-tank missiles (FGM-148 Javelin)

 

[Urwumpe]

canopies to protect the tank from NATO anti-tank missiles (FGM-148 Javelin)
View attachment 27842View attachment 27843

Interesting idea and perfectly in line with Soviet tank design: Why build a tank flat and easy to hide, if you can also build it huge....

 

[clipper]

Ukrainian Troops Test Javelin Missile Against Russian Cage-Style Improvised Tank Armor

Recent live-fire maneuvers have pitted the American-supplied anti-tank missiles against the kind of ad-hoc armor now appearing on some Russian tanks.

www.thedrive.com

It doesn't really fare too well against tandem-charge warheads like the one on Javelin so it's designed more as a counter for drone strikes (guided missiles fired from drones as well as suicide drones) as that was proven particularly effective during the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict when Azerbaijan/Turkey employed Turkish and Israeli drones against Armenian armor.

 

[Urwumpe]

Ukrainian Troops Test Javelin Missile Against Russian Cage-Style Improvised Tank Armor

Recent live-fire maneuvers have pitted the American-supplied anti-tank missiles against the kind of ad-hoc armor now appearing on some Russian tanks.

www.thedrive.com

It doesn't really fare too well against tandem-charge warheads like the one on Javelin so it's designed more as a counter for drone strikes (guided missiles fired from drones as well as suicide drones) as that was proven particularly effective during the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict when Azerbaijan/Turkey employed Turkish and Israeli drones against Armenian armor.

Also it wouldn't work too well against an trained user of the Javelin using the direct attack mode. While this isn't the most dangerous mode, it can still destroy tanks, especially from the side or rear. It could protect better against the NLAW, but I doubt it.

But the biggest disadvantage of such a cage of top would be visibility. The tank would be visible long before he is able to fight back, traditionally, you try to have the gun and the sensors as the highest points on an otherwise flat tank. Also I doubt such a cage is artillery strike resistant.

 

[clipper]

But the biggest disadvantage of such a cage of top would be visibility. The tank would be visible long before he is able to fight back, traditionally, you try to have the gun and the sensors as the highest points on an otherwise flat tank. Also I doubt such a cage is artillery strike resistant.

It will also create difficulties down the road for any film director working on a Russian government-funded propaganda historical movie because as well all know, every war flick has to feature a tank driving at full speed with its commander standing proudly through the open turret hatch, and this setup doesn't really seem to allow for something like that (at least not without looking somewhat silly).