Ukraine

[JerryBaumchen 1,363]

22 hours ago, billvon said:

Yesterday Russia lost 34 tanks, 91 APVs and 18 artillery pieces .

During World War II, the Germans and Japanese had better aircraft, better pilots, better tacticians, better armor and better-trained troops.  And militarily they were terrifyingly effective.

But every aerial engagement where a German force would shoot down 15 Allied aircraft and lose only 2 aircraft themselves, the next day the Allies would launch another 15, fresh from the factory.  And the Germans couldn't replace those 2 because the Allies were targeting their infrastructure - rubber plants, ball bearing plants, refineries.  Eventually they couldn't keep up with our ability to manufacture and stage munitions.   And in the end it led to their downfall.

Let's hope something similar happens here.

 

 

Hi Bill,

I have read that during the 30's, some of Hitler's generals visited the US.  They were able to see a number of manufacturing facilities.  Upon reporting to Hitler, they advised him to never go to war with the US due to this capability.  He told them that he did not believe them as no country could produce what they were telling him.

Guess what happened?

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  Sort of reminds me of someone else who said that he was smarter than the generals.  Now, who could that be?

 

[JerryBaumchen 1,363]

27 minutes ago, billvon said:

Yep.  One of Germany's big needs were interceptors that could get to 30,000 feet before the Allied bombers got out of range.

And in terms of a mistake in the other direction, the Lancaster bomber saw fairly heavy losses during the war, mainly due to being intercepted on the way _back_ from bombing missions (after German fighters had time to climb to their altitude.)  The solution to this was more guns.

An undergrad by the name of Freeman Dyson pointed out that if you got rid of the top and bottom turrets (and their crew and guns and ammunition and oxygen etc etc) you could increase the top speed of the aircraft by 50mph - and give it far more range.  This would have allowed it to outrun most interceptors, and additionally you'd lose fewer crew if one of them WAS shot down.  And it would have allowed retreat to more distant airfields, taking more circuitous routes.  

However this was contrary to the spirit of the times, which was that bombers were flying fortresses, one for all and all for one, a brave aircrew defending their craft with the best guns they could get.  So it didn't happen.

Hi Bill,

I have read quite a number of books about the European Theater of Operations [ ETO ].  I have always been impressed how some people are the perfect person for that moment in time.

My personal favorite is Winston Churchill.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  For some really good books [ a trilogy ] of the battles against the Third Reich, I recommend books by Rick Atkinson.  Rick Atkinson - Wikipedia

Publication of The Liberation Trilogy began in 2002 with An Army at Dawn: The War in North Africa, 1942–1943, acclaimed by The Wall Street Journal as "the best World War II battle narrative since Cornelius Ryan's classics, The Longest Day and A Bridge Too Far." While with the 101st Airborne Division south of Baghdad in April 2003, Atkinson learned that the book had been awarded the Pulitzer Prize for history. The trilogy's second volume, The Day of Battle: The War in Sicily and Italy, 1943–1944, published in 2007, drew praise from The New York Times as "a triumph of narrative history, elegantly written...and rooted in the sight and sounds of battle." Volume three, The Guns at Last Light: The War in Western Europe, 1944–1945, was published by Henry Holt and Co. in May 2013, and was ranked #1 on the New York Times Hardcover Nonfiction

[kallend 2,027]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

Yep.  One of Germany's big needs were interceptors that could get to 30,000 feet before the Allied bombers got out of range.

And in terms of a mistake in the other direction, the Lancaster bomber saw fairly heavy losses during the war, mainly due to being intercepted on the way _back_ from bombing missions (after German fighters had time to climb to their altitude.)  The solution to this was more guns.

An undergrad by the name of Freeman Dyson pointed out that if you got rid of the top and bottom turrets (and their crew and guns and ammunition and oxygen etc etc) you could increase the top speed of the aircraft by 50mph - and give it far more range.  This would have allowed it to outrun most interceptors, and additionally you'd lose fewer crew if one of them WAS shot down.  And it would have allowed retreat to more distant airfields, taking more circuitous routes.  

However this was contrary to the spirit of the times, which was that bombers were flying fortresses, one for all and all for one, a brave aircrew defending their craft with the best guns they could get.  So it didn't happen.

Geoffrey DeHavilland acted on it, and produced the DH Mosquito.  No gun turrets, crew of 2. 415 mph, 4,000lb bomb load, could outrun most German fighters.

For comparison, the B17 top speed 287mph, typical bomb load 4,500lb.

 

Goring made a speech to German aircraft manufacturers in which he said:

In 1940 I could at least fly as far as Glasgow in most of my aircraft, but not now! It makes me furious when I see the Mosquito. I turn green and yellow with envy. The British, who can afford aluminium better than we can, knock together a beautiful wooden aircraft that every piano factory over there is building, and they give it a speed which they have now increased yet again. What do you make of that? There is nothing the British do not have. They have the geniuses and we have the nincompoops. After the war is over I'm going to buy a British radio set – then at least I'll own something that has always worked. (Source: Horst Boog,  Gerhard Krebs and Detlef Vogel. Germany and the Second World War: Volume VII: The Strategic Air War in Europe and the War in the West and East Asia, 1943-1944/5. 2006. ISBN 978-0-19822-889-9). 

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

On 10/12/2023 at 2:54 PM, billvon said:

Yesterday Russia lost 34 tanks, 91 APVs and 18 artillery pieces .

During World War II, the Germans and Japanese had better aircraft, better pilots, better tacticians, better armor and better-trained troops.  And militarily they were terrifyingly effective...

 

 

Well, in 1941, the Japanese Zero and the German BF-109 and FW-190 were better than anything that the Allies had.

By the end of the war, the Germans had managed to upgrade the FW-190 a fair amount, the BF-109 a bit and produce a handful of very sketchy ME-262s.
The Japanese still had the Zero. They had a few designs in development, but nothing came out of it.

The Allies, OTOH, had managed to develop the P-51 Mustang (all the way up to the "D" model), the F6F Hellcat, the P-38 Lightning, The F4U Corsair and a few others. All of them superior to their enemies.

Not to mention that 'little thing' the Americans called the "B-29". 

Neither the Japanese nor the Germans ever developed a serious, long range, heavy bomber.

The R&D of the Americans was a big part of it.

The industrial might was a big key, but not the only one.

[jakee 1,489]

13 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Well, in 1941, the Japanese Zero and the German BF-109 and FW-190 were better than anything that the Allies had.

Well, North America /= the allies. Even in 1940 the Mk1 Spitfire had overall performance parity with the contemporary 109E, plus a significant tactical advantage in most BoB engagements. In 1941 the MkV had near parity with the 109F, though the new Fw190 was superior. But in 1942 the 109 was completely outclassed and the 190 matched and soon left behind by the MkIX, and at some levels the Typhoon. (The 109 was also, even by the standards of the 1000+hp taildragger era, very difficult to handle on the ground and suffered a high loss rate from simple takeoffs and landings - a problem which got worse as its aerial performance got better. It tends to be the last aeroplane that warbird pilots graduate to these days, especially the Spanish Buchons with an engine that goes the wrong way for the airframe design. Truly terrifying to think that teenagers with 100 hours or less were thrown into any of these things back in the day)

13 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Neither the Japanese nor the Germans ever developed a serious, long range, heavy bomber.

At the very start of the war the FW 200 Condor was already a very modern long range 4 engine bomber, that was made in relatively small numbers for anti ship missions. They actually developed the first ever guided missile for it and sunk a number of ships. Possibly the initial major reason they didn’t make or develop more was based on strategy, not ability. Germany didn’t expect to need a mass of heavy bombers to conquer Europe. They’d planned on lightning advances and total victory before the enemy had a chance to react. Wholesale strategic bombardment wasn’t something they thought they would need. And it almost worked. But even when they were doing it in the blitz, the situation was different to us. They were bombing England from France, we were bombing Berlin from England. 

[kallend 2,027]

15 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Well, in 1941, the Japanese Zero and the German BF-109 and FW-190 were better than anything that the Allies had.

By the end of the war, the Germans had managed to upgrade the FW-190 a fair amount, the BF-109 a bit and produce a handful of very sketchy ME-262s.
The Japanese still had the Zero. They had a few designs in development, but nothing came out of it.

The Allies, OTOH, had managed to develop the P-51 Mustang (all the way up to the "D" model), the F6F Hellcat, the P-38 Lightning, The F4U Corsair and a few others. All of them superior to their enemies.

Not to mention that 'little thing' the Americans called the "B-29". 

Neither the Japanese nor the Germans ever developed a serious, long range, heavy bomber.

The R&D of the Americans was a big part of it.

The industrial might was a big key, but not the only one.

The Allies included others besides the USA.

Incidentally, the B-29 was never used in Europe and was so plagued with problems that the Lancaster was seriouly considered for the atom bomb missions even though politically unpalatable to Groves.  The Enola Gay and Bock's Car  had to use  Lancaster bomb releases because the B-29's was not up to the job.

Lancaster's bomb bay was more than twice the size of the B-17's and its bomb load was more than twice as much.

Mosquito was the fastest allied bomber by a long way.

And then there's the RR Merlin for the P-51, the  cavity magnetron and the Bombe.

 

Edited October 14, 2023 by kallend

[jakee 1,489]

Russian backed forces with Russian supplied weapons shot down MH17, just like the Russian Army keeps shooting down its own fighter jets.

[olofscience 480]

10 hours ago, The Hundredth Monkey said:

From 2014 until February 24th 2022, Azov were widely reported on as being far right fascists/ neo nazis etc.

So we have some vague secondhand reports about them, but we have YOU spouting right-wing, nazi "pureblood" nonsense right here.

And you support Putin. Hmm...

[jakee 1,489]

And who else do we know was an overt neo Nazi? The military commander of Wagner. The same Wagner that was named after Hitler’s favourite composer, for that reason. The same Wagner that Putin has stated is and always has been an organ of the Russian State. But sure. Ukrainian Nazis. Great reason to support Russia.

I listened to an interview with a really excellent historian who studied the sociology-political aspects of war, and she said there’s a reason why Putin’s rhetoric plays so well in Russia that most of us don’t understand. Going all the way back to the late ‘40s Stalin scapegoated the Ukrainians, drew attention to their high profile SS brigades and used it as support and justification for Russia’s rigid control of the rest of the USSR’s territories. So the Russian populace has been conditioned for generations to view Ukraine as a haven for treasonous Quislings. But in reality the Russian homeland had more Nazi collaborators than Ukraine did - both in pure numbers and as a percentage of the population in occupied areas. 
 

Anyway - it seems like ATACAMS rockets are now in country and already being used to great effect. Two Russian helicopter bases in occupied territory were attacked with the destruction of numerous attack and transport helicopters and a major ammunition dump. Russian military bloggers are calling it the worst day for Russian aviation since the war began. Even worse than the mutiny!

Edited October 18, 2023 by jakee

[Phil1111 1,149]

4 hours ago, olofscience said:

So we have some vague secondhand reports about them, but we have YOU spouting right-wing, nazi "pureblood" nonsense right here.

And you support Putin. Hmm...

Russian trolls are very busy now so they have a limited time to visit this forum.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

And who else do we know was an overt neo Nazi? The military commander of Wagner. The same Wagner that was named after Hitler’s favourite composer, for that reason. The same Wagner that Putin has stated is and always has been an organ of the Russian State. But sure. Ukrainian Nazis. Great reason to support Russia.

I listened to an interview with a really excellent historian who studied the sociology-political aspects of war, and she said there’s a reason why Putin’s rhetoric plays so well in Russia that most of us don’t understand. Going all the way back to the late ‘40s Stalin scapegoated the Ukrainians, drew attention to their high profile SS brigades and used it as support and justification for Russia’s rigid control of the rest of the USSR’s territories. So the Russian populace has been conditioned for generations to view Ukraine as a haven for treasonous Quislings. But in reality the Russian homeland had more Nazi collaborators than Ukraine did - both in pure numbers and as a percentage of the population in occupied areas. 
 

Anyway - it seems like ATACAMS rockets are now in country and already being used to great effect. Two Russian helicopter bases in occupied territory were attacked with the destruction of numerous attack and transport helicopters and a major ammunition dump. Russian military bloggers are calling it the worst day for Russian aviation since the war began. Even worse than the mutiny!

Oh there you go.

Using FACTS again.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

Back at the front, Biden secretly gave some of our short range ATACMS, the cluster bomb variety, to Ukraine who promptly used them against parked helicopters, ammo dumps, and runways. Apparently they can avoid Russian air defenses, and those are our 30+ year old refurbished units. Now lets surprise Putin again and give them a few of the long range bunker busting variety to take out the Kerch Bridge before winter.

[jakee 1,489]

21 minutes ago, The Hundredth Monkey said:

As a skydiver, you should understand how retarded it is to actually believe that personnel that have the capacity to use the BUK multi vehicle system, would then make the wreckage crash in their own territory?
 

Shooting something down with a surface to air missile is not hard. The missile literally does the job for you. Figuring out what you’re aiming at and whether or not you should shoot at it is the hard bit - hence why the Russians keep shooting down their own planes too. So they don’t ‘make the wreckage crash’ anywhere else because why would they? They were too stupid to know they were shooting down a civilian airliner.

This is all ludicrously obvious stuff, by the way.

[olofscience 480]

38 minutes ago, The Hundredth Monkey said:

Pureblood and proud.

You're really not seeing the irony of accusing other people to be neo-nazis, are you?

[winsor 236]

5 hours ago, The Hundredth Monkey said:

I suppose they dropped white phosphorus on themselves too?

As a skydiver, you should understand how retarded it is to actually believe that personnel that have the capacity to use the BUK multi vehicle system, would then make the wreckage crash in their own territory?

Why did Kiev then make the airline deviate from the flight corridor and reduce altitude... Kind of weird no?

When the "Dutch lead team' showed up to inspect the wreckage, Kiev started bombing the region, inhibiting the inspection team from 'inspecting'...

The MH17 trial began at the Hague exactly a week after Putin Invaded on the 24th Feb 2022>>> on the 1st of march 2022..

What was the result of that trial?

 

Ya ni znaiou, Tavarisch

[jakee 1,489]

7 minutes ago, Slim King said:

What happened to the Spring ...errr... Summer offense that we gave them $100 Billion for? Where did the money go?

Ask the Commander of the Black Sea Fleet.

[jakee 1,489]

1 minute ago, Slim King said:

They promised to kick Russia out and cut off Crimea. That never happened and they still took our money. Why would we give them more?

Because they're winning, which means the money is buying results. Why would we stop?

[jakee 1,489]

50 minutes ago, Slim King said:

You are kidding right? The lines are virtually the same. It's a back and forth stalemate of sorts. No one is winning anything... War is a racket.https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/09/28/world/europe/russia-ukraine-war-map-front-line.html

But the capability of the Russian military is not. And that's still Ukraine fighting with one hand tied behind its back, since the best long range weapons are still to be supplied. Soon Ukraine will be able to deny Russia the use of Crimea altogether without even having to cross the Dnipro. That's what the money is buying.

 

By the way, Ukraine never promised to win the war this year. They've been very careful to caution the west that the advance would not be like the 2022 counteroffensive that happened before Russia constructed any defensive lines. You're either lying again, or just tragically misinformed. In this case I'll go for the latter.

[JerryBaumchen 1,363]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

Because they're winning, which means the money is buying results. Why would we stop?

Hi jakee,

And, SURPRISE; some people actually go back & buy another tomato after they have eaten the one that they have.

Jerry Baumchen

[jakee 1,489]

6 hours ago, Slim King said:

Perpetual war is what the globalists want as they pocket billions and the Dems don't even ask where the money is going. The zombies follow their orders to their deaths. War is a racket.

Yes, the Russian troops storming forwards wave after wave,  day after day in Adiivka and other places are quite zombie like.

[jakee 1,489]

Just now, Slim King said:

Yes... War is a racket.

Which is why Putin should stop fighting and withdraw his troops from Ukraine, don't you agree? 

[olofscience 480]

8 minutes ago, Slim King said:

Putin offered to do just that over a year ago.

No, he didn't.

[jakee 1,489]

20 minutes ago, Slim King said:

Putin offered to do just that over a year ago. 

No he didn't. But Ukraine have offered him the chance to do it from the very start. At any time he could withdraw from Ukraine, and they will let him. So he really should, shouldn't he?

[olofscience 480]

9 hours ago, The Hundredth Monkey said:

You'll live to see public servants executed (legally and lawfully) for all that...

Let's just say your success record at making predictions is, well, absolutely abysmal.

Russia taking Ukraine "by Sunday" in February last year? "Not going to be much longer" with the convoy to Kyiv?

 

And don't say "you didn't take into account Western countries helping Ukraine", because you'd be an idiot to fail to predict that would happen.

 

Oh wait...

[jakee 1,489]

Just now, Slim King said:

"No he didn't " is a very weak response.... ZERO logical persuasion....

"Yes he did" is even weaker. You claim he offered to leave Ukraine - prove it. 

 

More generally, you don't seem to understand what logic is. Whether or not Putin offered to leave Ukraine is a question of fact. It's not something you use logic to persuade people of, it's something you either have evidence of or you don't. If you don't, any self proclaimed logic you use is pointless. A perfect logical argument based on erroneous facts is going to result in concusions that are wrong.

Just like your proclamation that it's impossible for Trump to have lost despite getting more votes the second time around. Regardless of whether your 'mathematical logic' is correct, your conclusion is wrong because your basic facts are wrong - it has happened before. Any logical person who is actually interested in the truth would admit that. Which is exactly why you refuse to.