OV9

DaveE wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 10:23 am I wonder what our, NATO's etc response would have been if Russia had invaded Poland?

Poland is part of NATO, so I guess we’d have collectively defended them.

I'm more interested in how the US/NATO will explain it's apparent massive over-egging of Russias military capabilities to justify military spending - there seems to be a huge difference between how NATO and the US have presented the risk of Russia, versus it's actual threat capability.

How did we not know that Russia, by all accounts, is this shit? Because the overwhelming evidence is that they are shit.

Yeah, they can hurl shells at buildings as much as any twat with a hundred howitzers, but they've utterly failed to get air superiority, haven't been able to support their front line troops or resupply them properly. Their supply lines are being taken out by Turkish drones that are considered the redheaded stepchild of the UAV world.

Given the monstrous size of the NATO member states military budgets, shouldn't we have known this?

Did that skim the building

Beany wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 10:55 am Yeah, they can hurl shells at buildings as much as any twat with a hundred howitzers…

…supply lines are being taken out by Turkish drones that are considered the redheaded stepchild of the UAV world.

And that’s why, unpleasant as it seems, refusing a no-fly zone is the lesser of two evils. It would make no difference to the Russian artillery offensive, but it’d stop the Ukrainians using jets & UAVs against Russian convoys.

Sundayjumper wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 11:27 am

Beany wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 10:55 am Yeah, they can hurl shells at buildings as much as any twat with a hundred howitzers…

…supply lines are being taken out by Turkish drones that are considered the redheaded stepchild of the UAV world.

And that’s why, unpleasant as it seems, refusing a no-fly zone is the lesser of two evils. It would make no difference to the Russian artillery offensive, but it’d stop the Ukrainians using jets & UAVs against Russian convoys.

Yeah, there are solid logistical reasons for it - and if we keep throwing anti tank and anti aircraft weapons at Ukraine, they've proved that they're well trained enough to use them, and Russias defences are too poorly managed to avoid them.

Beany wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 10:55 am
Given the monstrous size of the NATO member states military budgets, shouldn't we have known this?

They almost certainly did, defence budgets are more about propping up the arms industry than defence.

Beany wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 10:55 am I'm more interested in how the US/NATO will explain it's apparent massive over-egging of Russias military capabilities to justify military spending - there seems to be a huge difference between how NATO and the US have presented the risk of Russia, versus it's actual threat capability.

How did we not know that Russia, by all accounts, is this shit? Because the overwhelming evidence is that they are shit.

Yeah, they can hurl shells at buildings as much as any twat with a hundred howitzers, but they've utterly failed to get air superiority, haven't been able to support their front line troops or resupply them properly. Their supply lines are being taken out by Turkish drones that are considered the redheaded stepchild of the UAV world.

Given the monstrous size of the NATO member states military budgets, shouldn't we have known this?

I've no idea obviosuly, but if our intelligence only extends as far as being able to observe what they actually have ont he ground/in the skies (obviously it won't only extend that far) then it might not seem unreasonable to assume they have a strong military. The fact they're skrimping on their maintenance, massively over-estimating their capabilities, and just being downright tactically clueless might be more difficult to ascertain?

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 11:32 am

Beany wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 10:55 am I'm more interested in how the US/NATO will explain it's apparent massive over-egging of Russias military capabilities to justify military spending - there seems to be a huge difference between how NATO and the US have presented the risk of Russia, versus it's actual threat capability.

How did we not know that Russia, by all accounts, is this shit? Because the overwhelming evidence is that they are shit.

Yeah, they can hurl shells at buildings as much as any twat with a hundred howitzers, but they've utterly failed to get air superiority, haven't been able to support their front line troops or resupply them properly. Their supply lines are being taken out by Turkish drones that are considered the redheaded stepchild of the UAV world.

Given the monstrous size of the NATO member states military budgets, shouldn't we have known this?

I've no idea obviosuly, but if our intelligence only extends as far as being able to observe what they actually have ont he ground/in the skies (obviously it won't only extend that far) then it might not seem unreasonable to assume they have a strong military. The fact they're skrimping on their maintenance, massively over-estimating their capabilities, and just being downright tactically clueless might be more difficult to ascertain?

It appears from that leaked fsb report I posted back a page or 2 that the fsb have been trained to be yes men- say Russia will loose in any scenario and you’re out of a job.

So if our intelligence partly comes from intercepted communications and leaked reports from the fsb maybe we believed that the Russian army was as strong as Putin thinks it is

The Russian army just seems to be sheer numbers but with minimal tech. NLAWs/RPGs shouldn't kill modern tanks with reactive armour, but they're going through Russian stuff like it's butter. Stinger's shouldn't take down modern fighter jets and helicopters due to their infrared counter measures, and this is 80's shit so hardly cutting edge tech. The Russian's don't even have basic communications or infrared on most of their items. Those Turkish drones should be shot down way before they manage to get a hit on Russian SAM's but that doesn't seem to be happening.
I guess some things can be predicted, but others like the defence system on an SU-34 can only be truly validated once you fire a missile at it. They look good doing inverted flips and flying at 60 knots over Farnborough but that doesn't seem to correlate to effectiveness in an actual war eh.

jamcg wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 11:49 am

It appears from that leaked fsb report I posted back a page or 2 that the fsb have been trained to be yes men- say Russia will loose in any scenario and you’re out of a life.

EFA

I love this from that General's death Twitter thread.

So who polices the apparent war crimes which seem to be taking place in Ukraine at the moment? Russia are clearly targeting non-military infrastructure and they seem to be opening fire on civilian vehicles, so will they actually face any sort of punishment for that in the long term or is it the equivalent of rich people paying fines so they can just break the law when they feel like it?

Well, Poland aren't mucking about.

It was thought they might supply some MIG29s to Ukraine.

I'm guessing there's been some backroom talks - they're giving them all of them, to be replaced with US F-16s.

Blimey.

Fucking finally

Literally thier entire air fleet (edit - of MiGs - they have other kit) For free, and immediate use, as soon as they reach Rammstein air force base. And they've taken in knocking on one million refugees.

I was expecting something more token - if Ukraine are winning the information war, Poland are a close runner up.

Guess some cuts in the Eastern bloc run pretty fucking deep.

Beany wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 7:42 pm …Rammstein air force base.

Ramstein. Rammstein is the band

I know almost nothing about planes, but I’m assuming the F16 is an upgrade, so that’s a nice sweetener for Poland.

I think they were in the process of actually converting their fleet to F-16s anyway, so this is a bonus if they’re now getting them for free.

As I recall the the two jets were broadly 'comparable' initially when they were contemporaries (the MIG was a response to the f15 IIRC) and from waaay back my memory is that the MIG is the better actual dogfighting craft but the F-16 is a more well rounded platform for kinda-multirole stuff - horses for courses, basically - which one was better depended entirely on what your were trying to do with them.

Yes, I used to have lots of airfix models when I was young and still had an imagination.

Although compared to an f22/35/eurofighter they're both a bit old hat.

That said, 29 MIG 29s is nothing to be sniffed at - that's a very, very serious chunk of weaponry and is extremely dangerous to literally anyone who isn't in a Eurofighter or an F35 or any other bleeding edge aircraft - there's a reason NATO still use them and that's because they work, and the only people who have anything significantly better are other NATO States, Russia and China. China don't care as it stands, and Russia's air force are... Well, their reputation is currently in flux.

Ukraine wanted a no fly zone - with US/NATO real time intelligence feeds, fucktons of man portable AA great and a full fleet of effective craft with the keys in the ignition, they've basically got one of they want one.

PS I trusted autocorrect

PPS: MiTo, it won't be for free, but your can bet there was a serious "multilateral politics discount" thrown in there, because it's also an excuse for the US to build more F35/F22/whatever they've got coming next.

It's 40yr old plane of which the US would have 1000+ in various guises and condition.

I imagine giving away 30 is not a problem.

Beany wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 7:42 pm Literally thier entire air fleet. For free, and immediate use, as soon as they reach Rammstein air force base. And they've taken in knocking on one million refugees.

I was expecting something more token - if Ukraine are winning the information war, Poland are a close runner up.

Guess some cuts in the Eastern bloc run pretty fucking deep.

Du.

Du hast Mig.

Du hast Mig neun-und-zwanzig