• The Sietch will be brought offline for HPG systems maintenance tomorrow (Thursday, 2 May 2024). Please remain calm and do not start any interstellar wars while ComStar is busy. May the Peace of Blake be with you. Precentor Dune

Armchair General's DonbAss Derailed Discussion Thread (Topics Include History, Traps, and the Ongoing Slavic Civil War plus much much more)

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
Mobilization Update.

Russian Troops Quarantined on a Train for two weeks after a WuFlu Outbreak. Apparently they'll just let it run it's course on the many Mobiks of advanced age and with chronic medical conditions. (Thread)



Inspiring Speech To the Troops



Some Russians Reportedly Get Training on modernized BRDM-2's.



Russian Mobiks Knocked Out After a Long Day of Training Presumably. Look so adorable sprawled out on bed.



Russian Helmet Inspection.

 

Tiamat

I've seen the future...
There are posts from SB & AH from the Crimean front that a (Volunteer) Russian ex-con convince twelve of his fellow Russians to go rogue

Somebody at AH.com stated that this group of Baker Dirty Dozen was an Russian volunteer unit, the Don Cossack Detachment ?
--> https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...n-war-thread-xv.533413/page-356#post-23562259


So, deserters, or marauders??

I swear this whole damn war feels more like a live action role play of Twilight: 2000 every damn day.
 

Hlaalu Agent

Nerevar going to let you down
Founder
So, deserters, or marauders??

I swear this whole damn war feels more like a live action role play of Twilight: 2000 every damn day.

Well, there is another option as the OP of that twitter thread joked...they very well might be a real-life A-Team if the accusations are false and/or unjust. If Russian incompetence created a real-life A-Team I am probably going to bust a rib from laughing so hard.
 

Tiamat

I've seen the future...
Anybody have a second source or counter-claim on this?



Because it sure looks like the Nth round of Russians being absolutely rat bastard war criminals.


If true, another bunch of Ukrainian children are going to get transported into the Russian interior to be forcibly raised as "proper" Russians, and never to be seen by their families again. Yeah, this sounds familiar. 🤬
 

History Learner

Well-known member
You wanna fuck? Lets fuck.

I'm definitely flattered, but unfortunately I prefer women and not catching AIDs from the likes of you. :)

Any solid-fuel ballistic missile - such as an SRBM, IRBM, or ICBM - is, by definition, "hypersonic." Hypersonics, therefore, are a 1940s technology , having first been deployed by Nazi Germany in the form of the V-2 rocket. In modern parlance, there are two kinds of hypersonic weapons. The first is Ye Olden Ballistic Missile, but with a more maneuverable terminal vehicle - a so-called HGV; Hypersonic Glide Vehicle. Technically speaking, the Apollo command capsule was such a vehicle as it could maneuver (by rolling) to actively steer itself upon landing and control its descent. You may also have heard of "MARVs", i.e. "maneuvering re-entry vehicle," i.e. an RV with some winglets on it so it can steer.

Any shithead with a slide rule can build these things. They are 1960's technology.

But then there is an air-breathing hypersonic vehicle. Rocket fuel consists of roughly 25% fuel and 75% oxidizer. Oxygen is by far the chief component in any fire; which is why thermobaric weapons are so powerful - they are 100% fuel, and get the oxygen from the local air, for free. Same for an air-breathing hypersonic munition; they use scram-jets to get their 02 from the atmosphere, and thus are a few orders of magnitude smaller and lighter than solid-rocket based hypersonics. Imagine a Tomahawk cruise missile, but moving at Mach 5. Contemplate the consequences for magazine depth on ships. Instead of the Russian Khinzal; an SRBM carried by an airplane and fired sideways, it's more like a Harpoon missile - every jet in the carrier air wing can carry at least two, and the carrier itself has hundreds in its internal magazine.

Guess who's leading the pack on developing such weapons? Yeah. I'll leave that as an exercise to the "learner."

Russia and China, with the U.S. only having one successful test so far. Would you like to try again, or should I already accept this is just a lot of bark and no bite from you?

Because it would preserve said advantage by complicating Russia's ability to take the most obvious corrective course vs. American missile defenses and/or first-strike superiority, i.e. increasing warhead count.

Duh.

Thank you for contradicting your own argument, in that this is to concede the U.S./NATO advantage is not overwhelming; it's too dependent on the specific political contexts therein. It also does pass the common sense test of why Russia would continue to sign an unfavorable treaty and directly leads into issues that come with the rest of this rather fantastical post.

Because the Russian federation is such a pack of incompetent fucking clowns that merely sending a handful of modern weapons, i.e. the HIMARS, has been more than enough to assfuck Russian rear-area logistics and supply into the stratosphere. Because Territorial Defense Forces who were trained in irregular warfare by the CIA were able to, with nothing more than shoulder-fired RPGs and rifles, assrape Russian logistical columns early in the conflict and inflict staggering losses. Because Russia's vaunted and much-storied army got their asses handed to them so fucking hard that they had to retreat from the assault on Kyiv and left in their wake such a staggering amount of materiel that it still boggles the imagination. I extensively documented just how hard the Russians got raped during their "withdrawal" from the Kyiv theater here and here, using extensive video footage of an entire Russian armored company getting wiped out as a case study in just what a shitshow their combat power is.

This is what the west and NATO have accomplished by sending peanuts. We sent shoulder-launched missiles, small arms ammunition, obsolete AFVs (M-113s etc.) and obsolete and moderately upgraded Soviet kit from former Soviet satellite nations (T-72s from Poland, etc.) Many of the weapons we sent were nearing their expiration dates - solid rocket motors have a limited shelf life. The vast majority of munitions sent were paid for during the 1980s for use against the Soviet Union - i.e., Russia - and now these already-paid for stocks are doing exactly what they were meant to do, which is to destroy Russian combat power. And much of the effectiveness of both our weapons and Ukrainian weapons have been determined by the quality of the intelligence information provided by NATO reconnaissance platforms. You have the Russian army communicating using unencrypted Chinese Baofeng radios while the most advanced ELINT platforms on the planet constantly hover just off the Ukranian coastline hoovering up the data - it is no mystery that Ukrainian munitions so consistently land directly where they hurt the most. And once that phenomenal intel capability was paired with a handful of modern standoff precision munition launchers, we were privileged to see the entire Russian Kharkiv front collapse in a matter of three weeks; with gains that cost them months of fighting being lost in days.

Lots of cute words and delusions, immediately followed by the U.S. showing how all of that is completely wrong with them directly rejecting Ukraine's membership:



Please, explain to me - why, exactly, does NATO need to intervene directly when the Ukranians are bending the Russian Armed Forces over a barrel using nothing but our goddamned obsolete hand-me-down weapons?

If the U.S. and its allies, according to you, has overwhelming nuclear and conventional overmatch, why not? NATO has forces in the region and if they are as great as you say, then there is no reason not to intervene given that could expedite the end of the war according to you. Indeed, the Pentagon itself is expecting the war to go on for many months, meaning vastly higher losses to the Ukrainian military and civilian population. If NATO could end this quickly, why don't they? They'd get the added prestige bonus of further humiliating Russia, according to you.

Very curious, then, that they don't do that, reject Ukraine's NATO membership and make statements about how they want to avoid war with Russia.

Try me, bumblefuck.

No trying is required to effortlessly pick apart your arguments; do better Sweetie.
 

History Learner

Well-known member
Hey buddy. Been a few days.

You gonna reply, or...?

I think it's adorable how desperate you are for my attention, and it is flattering how much I live in your head rent free, but my girlfriend and work get first dibs. Sorry dear :)

Given that in that time the southern front has all but collapsed, I am guessing not.

That's a funny way of saying you bitched out replying to my last post, and it's clear to see why you did:



Once again, I was correct lol. How about Kherson, since you brought that up?

 
Last edited:

History Learner

Well-known member
Actually, Ukraine right now is most likely more united than it ever was. Seriously.

Against the Russians, perhaps, but there are clear fissures in the Ukrainian State at the moment. There has been, for example, openly political conflict between Zelensky and the AFU Chief of Staff for the last few months, with Ukrainian sources reporting there is a general friction, most recently shown by Zelensky's efforts to downplay Zaluzhny's role in the Izyum success.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
I'm definitely flattered, but unfortunately I prefer women and not catching AIDs from the likes of you. :)

He's not an actual "fag"; he just likes planes.

If the U.S. and its allies, according to you, has overwhelming nuclear and conventional overmatch, why not? NATO has forces in the region and if they are as great as you say, then there is no reason not to intervene given that could expedite the end of the war according to you. Indeed, the Pentagon itself is expecting the war to go on for many months, meaning vastly higher losses to the Ukrainian military and civilian population. If NATO could end this quickly, why don't they? They'd get the added prestige bonus of further humiliating Russia, according to you.

Very curious, then, that they don't do that, reject Ukraine's NATO membership and make statements about how they want to avoid war with Russia.

AFAIK, the logic in regards to Ukraine and NATO is that Ukraine won't be admitted to NATO right now but that its future accession to NATO can't be ruled out, especially in the long(er)-run.

As for your first paragraph here, have you ever considered that NATO might want to bleed Russia dry and sees Ukraine as a good theater to do this in? I mean, if the Ukrainians themselves are willing to fight Russia, then why not? This war has been extremely great for Ukrainian nation-building, after all, as has the Donbass War been previously. Very ironic!

If Ukraine will win this war, then everyone is going to be singing this song lol:


1024px-%D0%9F%D1%83%D1%82%D1%96%D0%BD_-_%D1%85%D1%83%D0%B9%D0%BB%D0%BE.png


Translation:

Putin is a dickhead --- lalalalalala --- lalalalalala --- lalalalalala --- Putin dickhead! :D
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Against the Russians, perhaps, but there are clear fissures in the Ukrainian State at the moment. There has been, for example, openly political conflict between Zelensky and the AFU Chief of Staff for the last few months, with Ukrainian sources reporting there is a general friction, most recently shown by Zelensky's efforts to downplay Zaluzhny's role in the Izyum success.

And is this meaningfully different from, say, the tensions between Truman and MacArthur during the Korean War?
 

History Learner

Well-known member
He's not an actual "fag"; he just likes planes.

There's a lot of easy blows I could land here, but I'll refrain.

AFAIK, the logic in regards to Ukraine and NATO is that Ukraine won't be admitted to NATO right now but that its future accession to NATO can't be ruled out, especially in the long(er)-run.

Undoubtedly the long term goal is Ukraine in NATO. Unfortunately for them, the Russian Army has its own voice to put forth on the subject and is about to make it known very clearly in the next month or two as the first mobilized units enter the battlefield.

As for your first paragraph here, have you ever considered that NATO might want to bleed Russia dry and sees Ukraine as a good theater to do this in? I mean, if the Ukrainians themselves are willing to fight Russia, then why not? This war has been extremely great for Ukrainian nation-building, after all, as has the Donbass War been previously. Very ironic!

Could NATO not achieve the same end goal with its own forces? At much less cost to the civilians, while achieving further prestige by directly doing it at a quicker rate than the Ukrainians could do? Either NATO and the U.S. are a bunch of stupid cowards, or the analysis is fundamentally lacking in truth. I lean towards the latter, given an objective analysis of an on the ground facts. Outside the propaganda voices, even Ukrainian sources indicate as much; they're taking insanely high losses while still failing to achieve decisive success upon the Russian Army.

And is this meaningfully different from, say, the tensions between Truman and MacArthur during the Korean War?

Yes, given the U.S. wasn't in an existential war, for one, and that there was much less chance such a political conflict could result in a coup.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
There's a lot of easy blows I could land here, but I'll refrain.



Undoubtedly the long term goal is Ukraine in NATO. Unfortunately for them, the Russian Army has its own voice to put forth on the subject and is about to make it known very clearly in the next month or two as the first mobilized units enter the battlefield.



Could NATO not achieve the same end goal with its own forces? At much less cost to the civilians, while achieving further prestige by directly doing it at a quicker rate than the Ukrainians could do? Either NATO and the U.S. are a bunch of stupid cowards, or the analysis is fundamentally lacking in truth. I lean towards the latter, given an objective analysis of an on the ground facts. Outside the propaganda voices, even Ukrainian sources indicate as much; they're taking insanely high losses while still failing to achieve decisive success upon the Russian Army.



Yes, given the U.S. wasn't in an existential war, for one, and that there was much less chance such a political conflict could result in a coup.

Maybe the US is afraid of a nuclear war if it will militarily intervene directly in this conflict? And/or maybe it wants to stick it harder to the Russians by having them lose at Ukrainian hands, albeit with significant Western military aid, since this would be more psychologically devastating to the Russians than losing a direct war with NATO would?
 

History Learner

Well-known member
Maybe the US is afraid of a nuclear war if it will militarily intervene directly in this conflict? And/or maybe it wants to stick it harder to the Russians by having them lose at Ukrainian hands, albeit with significant Western military aid, since this would be more psychologically devastating to the Russians than losing a direct war with NATO would?

I'd agree the nuclear threat is the main reason they don't, but our "friend" here is arguing there is no Russian nuclear threat and the U.S. has an overwhelming advantage in that category. If there is no conventional or nuclear threat, as he proclaims, the case for complete lack of intervention seems even harder to square with said claims, which is my point.

As for the Russians, go on Russian telegram channels; they're all openly saying this has become a war between them and NATO, and it's common they bring up the large number of Western mercs on the battlefield as evidence of this. Putin in his recent speeches focused more on the United States and NATO than he did Ukraine, which is being echoed in other official mediums of communication.
 

Megadeath

Well-known member
I think it's adorable how desperate you are for my attention, and it is flattering how much I live in your head rent free, but my girlfriend and work get first dibs. Sorry dear :)

That's a funny way of saying you bitched out replying to my last post, and it's clear to see why you did:

Once again, I was correct lol. How about Kherson, since you brought that up?
Quoting a guy who gives no sources, and a track record of being wrong. Remember a month ago when he was claiming the Kherson offensive was a sad failure?
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
I'd agree the nuclear threat is the main reason they don't, but our "friend" here is arguing there is no Russian nuclear threat and the U.S. has an overwhelming advantage in that category. If there is no conventional or nuclear threat, as he proclaims, the case for complete lack of intervention seems even harder to square with said claims, which is my point.

As for the Russians, go on Russian telegram channels; they're all openly saying this has become a war between them and NATO, and it's common they bring up the large number of Western mercs on the battlefield as evidence of this. Putin in his recent speeches focused more on the United States and NATO than he did Ukraine, which is being echoed in other official mediums of communication.

Just how many Western mercs are there in Ukraine? Less than 1,000 in total?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top