406
General Chatter - The Boozer / Re: May Pub: Thursday 19th?
« on: May 04, 2022, 10:42:40 PM »
I don't know my work schedule that far in advance, but Thursday the 19th would probably work.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Ooh which dragon fight did you get stuck at in Neverwinter Nights? I remember being very frustrated by one in one of the games, then going back much later and loading with a very advanced character, just so I could absolutely wipe the floor with the dragon in revenge!I think it was the fight with the red dragon on the "dragon level." There is an option to pick an unnecessary fight with a smaller dragon instead, but that goes against my principles. No unnecessary draconicide!
So the news now, and the pretty clear message of the below-linked speech by Russian commanders, is that Russia is now claiming to be refocusing on the east and Donestsk - presumably as an attempted face-save and trying to scale back the war to something achievable. If it is indeed achievable for them, which we'll see, I guess.Yes, the problem is that Russian forces in Ukraine have already suffered serious casualties, and they don't have a strategic reserve ready to deploy. More than 10,000 dead is a lot when you had less than 200,000 troops to start with. Even if they can extract troops from the northern and southern fronts, they have a long way to travel to the new area of operations, and they are already tired and hungry and disillusioned with lost or broken kit.
https://eng.mil.ru/en/special_operation/news/more.htm?id=12414735@egNews
My understanding is that the state of the Russian army is in part because for the last half decade the primary qualification to be a senior Russian military type has been "can you keep both Putin and the Oligarchs happy" not "can you run and supply an army effectively". Russia essentially retains some of the political weaknesses of autocracies, and a big tendency to do things for show rather than effectiveness.Jubal, one of my professors who studies war since 1914 assigned us this paper which you can probably track down:
I guess there are some questions here about what a "normal" war is these days, given it almost never is symmetrical any more. I see the point psyanojim makes about the weird mismatches of capabilities, but I feel like expectations of matched capabilities may be entirely a thing of the past anyway (with the one exception of nuclear weapons where the biggest powers all hit "world destruction" in their capability and there's not much point getting far above that). But it feels like for non-nuclear warfare, the range of capability types and levels is probably far more stratified than at most previous points in history, to the point where it'd be relatively rare not to have a bunch of weird mismatches in any given war one could hypothesise.
I agree that its bizarre that a country with a space program can't manage secure coms between its generals and fighter planes and their units or bases! And its eerily reminiscent of the Battle of Tannenberg where the two Russian colums started sending radio messages back and forth in clear and the Germans realized they could fight one column at a time.This might be a good topic for the upcoming chat, but keep in mind that just like the UK and France can't equip their troops as lavishly as the Americans can, most countries can't reach UK standards. The Canadian Armed Forces currently have no air defense capability other than fixed radars and fighter-bombers. In a war against anyone with an air force, our air defense would be calling up our allies and asking for cover. A friend who used to be in the New Zealand army said something similar: "we are equipped to fight insurgents and militias, because that is what we get asked to do." I think we have pretty good arty, and Leopard II tanks with some upgrades, and our home-made Light Armoured Vehicles, but I am sure there are gaps in our kit if we sent the CAF into a war against a large state.Sure, all militaries have gaps in their capabilities.
But the Russians seem to have gaps in some very basic areas - like RADIOS. They seem to be relying on unencrypted civilian gear. Pictures of Russian soldiers with walkie-talkies that look like they are from Radio Shack. Russian fighter cockpits with civilian GPS systems clamped to the dash. etc. etc.
This is just baffling, and almost certainly contributing hugely to both the Russian lack of coordination, and the Ukranian ability to locate and intercept specific high-value targets like Russian generals.
And seeing pictures of Ukranian infantry is like browsing some kind of bizarre multi-century arms catalog. Cutting edge missile weapons being carried alongside random rusty Cold-War surplus gear and 1930s-era Tommy Guns.
This is a very weird war - it feels like it should be modern, but it actually isn't. Ukraine has extreme modern weapons in very narrow areas like man-portable missile systems. Russia has modern weapons on paper, but is relying heavily mainly on WWII/Cold-War era equipment and tactics.This might be a good topic for the upcoming chat, but keep in mind that just like the UK and France can't equip their troops as lavishly as the Americans can, most countries can't reach UK standards. The Canadian Armed Forces currently have no air defense capability other than fixed radars and fighter-bombers. In a war against anyone with an air force, our air defense would be calling up our allies and asking for cover. A friend who used to be in the New Zealand army said something similar: "we are equipped to fight insurgents and militias, because that is what we get asked to do." I think we have pretty good arty, and Leopard II tanks with some upgrades, and our home-made Light Armoured Vehicles, but I am sure there are gaps in our kit if we sent the CAF into a war against a large state.