Not only that, it seems they are using proper Counter BTY/IDF tactics. They are putting their existing/newly aquired C-IDF radars to good use! An art I hold dearly to my heart!
Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar
- Thread starter areksnumbr1sxylady
- Start date
- Status
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
Well done Putin, this has worked a treat
Interestingly the USA has finally made its mind up and picked its new main combat rifle in a new caliber (6.8mm I think) and is going to phase out the m16.
So there's going to be a lot of NATO standard rifles and ammunition comming available
Not for years. The first small numbers for testing aren't due until the end of next year.
Impressive. At some point in the middle of that battle the Doom music kicked in.
This news and the recent news of our treaty to provide mutual support in the event of and military action are all very reassuring.
UK really has been stepping up and projecting its influence in the last few months. However, hopefully the spending on our own forces follows to back up the rhetoric! Years and years of cuts and degradation of our manpower and capabilities have left us in a precarious position. Our greatest asset being well trained manpower is over worked and underfunded. if we are to realise whitehalls ambitions we need to see the funding, personnel and trainings budgets massively increase. The dynamic has changed, we are no longer post-cold war. We are back in it or at least something else yet to be defined, however either way we need to refocus, re-evaluate and pump investment into our forces.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 32,224
- Location
- Leafy Cheshire
Good news and not a shocker, the UK has basically guaranteed the security of both until they join.
We already spend more than required on our armed forces (the intent is everyone in NATO puts 2% of GDP into defence) but many do not and alongside that, what some countries spend money on is worthless for contributing to a foreign conflict.
There are definitely countries not contributing a fair share to NATO by a variety of standards and if everyone lived up to the spirit of the arrangement it would reduce pressure on the larger contributors.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 32,224
- Location
- Leafy Cheshire
What is required to be spent by NATO does not equal what is required to maintain a credible armed force. If you simply wish to protect your boarders then 2% may be OK, if you wish to project your power around the world, maintain a blue water navy, credible air force and nuclear weapons then you need to spend appropriately.
Yes we spend a good amount of money, but vs our ambition the armed forces are underfunded.
I believe our ambition is to be a member of and sometimes a lead in multinational coalitions when a conflict arises. The UK has credible power projection to back that up, while spending a bit over 2% GDP.
Also said that some countries are not capable of power projection with what they spend their money on. There are different measures to complain about everyones NATO contributions.
That's cute! The reality is that the "2%" is really an absolute minimum to have a credible "defence".
We may be spending more than is required by NATO. However, I can assure you that the lived reality is much different. My parent unit is on paper "oveemanned" we hold a larger number of people than we are supposed to going by the most recent review. However the strain on manpower is critical, retention and sign-off rates are at an all time high due to the current demand and output expected on our already depleted ranks. We just don't have the same pool of manpower to draw from that we used to, which means the same smaller pool of people are getting beasted trying to support current output of operations exercises and training. All the while doing so with an ageing and increasingly obsolete fleet of equipment and vehicles.
The truth is that the current budget is largely struggling to fund wages, overbudget, overpriced big-ticket projects. Which is due to chronic underfunding and cutbacks since the before the end of the Cold War. The GWOT didn't help the situation, yes we have much better personal protective equipment to thank for that but our layout and equipment was left entirely theatre specific after the prolonged desert counter insurgencies and that left our equipment woefully inadequate. We have been desperately trying to rebrand and re-equip since to face a rapidly changing world, however we are falling behind the curve.
The apparent story of the attack on the river crossing: https://twitter.com/kms_d4k/status/1524506104192974849
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Sep 2003
- Posts
- 5,017
- Location
- Midlands
Just came to post the same, amazing if true, quite possibly 2 BTG wiped out
That's a good account of events!
Sounds like they got pretty much destroyed by superior tactics and an enemy military that actually works together properly, so pretty much the story of the war haha.
You're talking exclusively about the army though. The navy is currently where it's at for funding, tech and equipment and rightfully so I guess, given the current climate.
And that's not all of it, there are pictures of even more destroyed armour in the surrounding trees!
2% was a commitment for 2024, a point in time not yet reached, but more fundamentally there's not a single country spending more because others are spending less. The US, UK, and France maintain militaries capable of projecting power overseas because they want to for domestic political reasons not because Germany, Belgium, or Luxembourg are spending less. In many ways the biggest contribution of the NATO nations is the hosting of airbases. America's ability to project military power against foreign targets is immensely higher because of the bases it has in allied nations across the globe.
Good way of putting it.
- Status