What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

US Foreign Policy 3.0: We're The Mets of International Diplomacy

Status
Not open for further replies.
Also reading he's having a hard time scaring up more people to replace them. So his eastern campaign is pretty much limited to the remnants of what he's already got.

We need to send Ukraine heavy artillery so they can pound the crap out of those remnants from a distance.
 
Nobody trolls like these people.

Russia threatens Finland with militarization of border if they persist in pursuing NATO membership.

Finland tells Russia they will not submit to extortion.

Russia sends Finland video of tanks headed to the border.

Finland sends Russia video of their tractors.
 
Kepler said:
Nobody trolls like these people.

Russia threatens Finland with militarization of border if they persist in pursuing NATO membership.

Finland tells Russia they will not submit to extortion.

Russia sends Finland video of tanks headed to the border.

Finland sends Russia video of their tractors.
Click to expand...

Outstanding!
 
Kepler said:
Take a break, Driver 8.




34 Colonels have joined the 8 Generals. May there be many more.
Click to expand...

The Russian/Soviet military doctrine has been to over-rely on officers to do what NCOs do in wester militaries, so it's not surprising to see that they have so many high ranking folks in active combat areas.


On our end, you hear people half-jokingly say that sergeants run the army, and it seems to work pretty damn well for us.
 
The UN World Food Programme estimates that 100,000 people in Mariupol no longer have food, water, or heat.
 
Swansong said:
The Russian/Soviet military doctrine has been to over-rely on officers to do what NCOs do in wester militaries, so it's not surprising to see that they have so many high ranking folks in active combat areas.


On our end, you hear people half-jokingly say that sergeants run the army, and it seems to work pretty damn well for us.
Click to expand...

Ironically, the same could be said of the Germans v US in WWII. A lot of credit was given to the leadership on the ground to make a lot of momentary decisions. I would have expected the same in East, but if that was a lesson learned, it may have not been learned all that well.
 
The thing is, they can't. Other than the officers, Russian military has no soldiers with long term experience in the miltary. They have the officers and their contracted soldiers and transcripts, the sergeant or any career soldier with 20 years in the service is unknown to them.

Furthermore, any of their officers who have demonstrated even a modicum of ability and self-sufficiency will have been purged by leadership as a threat to their own position. So their military is basically a Trump and his administration trying to lead around a bunch of inexperienced kids who know even less than they do.
 
Swansong said:
The Russian/Soviet military doctrine has been to over-rely on officers to do what NCOs do in wester militaries, so it's not surprising to see that they have so many high ranking folks in active combat areas.


On our end, you hear people half-jokingly say that sergeants run the army, and it seems to work pretty damn well for us.
Click to expand...
Isn’t this a consequence of a conscription based military? Because they don’t have many people willing to go career the ones who do inevitably become officers right?
 
MichVandal said:
Ironically, the same could be said of the Germans v US in WWII.
Click to expand...

IINM this is who we stole the idea from.

One reason the Wehrmacht was so nimble and swift the first year of the war was their doctrine was flexible and their field command was given wide latitude to change plans on the fly and do what seemed best. They had to stay within the bounds of the greater plan, but they were not micromanaged.

Later in the war they had lost their best officers and the political control of the military was dysfunctional and paranoid, and they were given a short leash, and so they suffered.
 
So a few months ago we were discussing hypersonic weapons, and whether the US is actually lagging behind on the tech.

https://youtu.be/_vXJU3wADDU

This video argues that not only are we not behind, but we may be more advanced than Russia and, less likely, China. https://www.sandboxx.us/blog/hypers...-difference-between-boost-glide-and-scramjet/ - same guy with a 3 month old article explaining the functions and differences between the various hypersonic technologies utilized.

No one else has even test fired the scramjet style, which would deliver said cruise missile faster and wouldn't require any ballistic trajectory to get to hypersonic speeds. The Russian and Chinese styles use "boost glide" or "boost to glide" concepts to shoot the missile way up high and then effectively let gravity do its thing to achieve the mach 5+ speeds. The American scramjet concept uses a rocket to get to speed at much lower altitudes and then turns constant propulsion over to the scramjet. Really the only difference between a traditional ICBM or air-launched ballistic missile and Russia's Kinzhal is the use of guidance and gliding. It's literally a re-build Iskandar-M, which has been in service since 2006 and itself based on older ground-launch designs. So they slapped a better guidance and slightly improved propulsion system onto an existing weapon, and called it revolutionary. I know Russia claims to be almost ready with their 3M22 Zircon, but it's likely still years from being operational (if ever). Russian military announcements only lie when they say anything, so until one of these actually is seen in the wild, treat it like the SU-57 (still not operational despite being flown everywhere) and SU-75 (announced but still only a wooden model mock-up) or the MIG-41 (still on paper only) and dismiss it for now.


The Chinese are a good bit more advanced with their hypersonic glide missiles (DF-17), and this could pose a serious threat to our carriers, but Russia seems to lag a good bit behind them.


For now, Russian operational hypersonic missiles are just faster cruise missiles that use ballistic/glide routes. We need to stop scaring ourselves and make sure we don't have another missile gap situation.
 
Russia is giving the survivors of the Moskva sinking "instructional talks" where they are reminded their benefits are directly tied to them being "in good standing" with the government.

That could be Wal-Mart or the Catholic Church.
 
Swansong said:
So a few months ago we were discussing hypersonic weapons, and whether the US is actually lagging behind on the tech.

https://youtu.be/_vXJU3wADDU

This video argues that not only are we not behind, but we may be more advanced than Russia and, less likely, China. https://www.sandboxx.us/blog/hypers...-difference-between-boost-glide-and-scramjet/ - same guy with a 3 month old article explaining the functions and differences between the various hypersonic technologies utilized.

No one else has even test fired the scramjet style, which would deliver said cruise missile faster and wouldn't require any ballistic trajectory to get to hypersonic speeds. The Russian and Chinese styles use "boost glide" or "boost to glide" concepts to shoot the missile way up high and then effectively let gravity do its thing to achieve the mach 5+ speeds. The American scramjet concept uses a rocket to get to speed at much lower altitudes and then turns constant propulsion over to the scramjet. Really the only difference between a traditional ICBM or air-launched ballistic missile and Russia's Kinzhal is the use of guidance and gliding. It's literally a re-build Iskandar-M, which has been in service since 2006 and itself based on older ground-launch designs. So they slapped a better guidance and slightly improved propulsion system onto an existing weapon, and called it revolutionary. I know Russia claims to be almost ready with their 3M22 Zircon, but it's likely still years from being operational (if ever). Russian military announcements only lie when they say anything, so until one of these actually is seen in the wild, treat it like the SU-57 (still not operational despite being flown everywhere) and SU-75 (announced but still only a wooden model mock-up) or the MIG-41 (still on paper only) and dismiss it for now.


The Chinese are a good bit more advanced with their hypersonic glide missiles (DF-17), and this could pose a serious threat to our carriers, but Russia seems to lag a good bit behind them.


For now, Russian operational hypersonic missiles are just faster cruise missiles that use ballistic/glide routes. We need to stop scaring ourselves and make sure we don't have another missile gap situation.
Click to expand...

I sometimes wonder what the point is. It doesn't matter if you hit Moscow in 5 minutes or 23. Once they're launched on a trajectory towards the North Pole, it's pretty much over.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top