Something we use to some extent with the "Allied" marker brought to the fore in the Gulf conflict with V's of varying oriantations and other markings etc to denote formations/SQN/Command etc It was used to clearly identify friendly forces, If you knew what you were looking for you could tell exactly what unit it was. However it has been for the most part made obsolete with the introduction of the Combat Identification Panel. The Markings alongside Callsigns are still to some degree still used on our vehicles.
Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar
- Thread starter areksnumbr1sxylady
- Start date
- Status
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,667
Just find it odd they're using Z and not any letters in Cyrillic, I guess though it avoids any confusion and all the Z labelled stuff if it's an invasion marker is for Kharkov region
Putin told his retarded aide to make sure the army "Paynt all z truckz".
Wasn't done mainly as a deterrent anyhow - would need to go heavy really to have much deterrent value with Russia and then there is the risk they'd respond to it as or play it as an act of aggression.
Maybe another possible reading of it is aimed at Zelenskyy as a "marked man" as in "you sold out to the West" hence Z instead of З. A less likely explanation but that ethnicity tends to see things like that a bit different to how we do in the West.
Last edited:
Interesting someone noted that only equipment is marked with a Z where Ukraine has the equivalent in their inventory and it would be used over the border, anything which would hang back and/or never enter Ukraine in an invasion isn't marked up, anything only Russia has in their army isn't marked up.
Assuming they were marked for an invasion either it is very imminent or they are going to have to change it now it is all over the internet.
Assuming they were marked for an invasion either it is very imminent or they are going to have to change it now it is all over the internet.
Not helped I think the West's attitude seems more about coping and containment selling out in the hope of limiting conflict rather than necessarily preventing it... unsurprisingly we have little appetite for war (not that having such would be a good thing).
This force composition isn't geared up to go against NATO in fact if anything it is optimised around minimising the cost of loss to Russia - stuff they can afford to lose or can utilise from a range it can be pulled back from.
I think the risk of spill over would be if Ukraine folded too quickly - it might raise the temptation of having a go at somewhere else though their options are limited without potentially facing off against somewhere with NATO presence - and/or build up against somewhere like one of the Baltic states to see whether NATO forces would be pulled back... a protracted conflict in Ukraine would probably bulwark against spill over.
What is interesting is that cyber attacks have not been equated to waging military war but as civil criminal acts. Russia is happy to simply keep blaming criminal elements as cover - only if it got to real hard action with NATO would Russia contemplate cutting internet links, after all why cut the links your large number of cyber attacks need? The west would simply pull the plug on Russian SWIFT activities. Russia would disconnect the Gas.. and away you go.
Most critical organisations view the security landscape with a military/war perspective and collaborate globally and share information to speed the response plus limit scope. Analysis and operations vs a very low risk tolerance hence the high investments. It's the average corp that either has slap-happy approach, especially in terms of startups and companies under financial pressure (startups, failing and prep for sell), that often take more risk leading to easy pickings.
In terms of new tech (I used to sell quantum cryptographic systems), there's some benefit but in the end the attack surfaces and attitudes to control and data safety are still a problem. I would expect malware to increase substantially - let the local machine do the damage.
One aspect is interesting.
If russia are using their old technology that they've had in mothballs, the numbers game would easily combat Ukranian forces in direct conflict. It means they're not going to waste money or risk their limited numbers of advanced weaponry.
a) NATO doesn't have a ready stock pile of ye-olde cheap weapons to throw at all the old gear that the Russians are deploying - even an old tank on the ground is a force to lightly armed enemy. So the cost per bang is high to NATO and low to Russia.
b) If Russia want to go on a blitzkrieg-esque rampage they will use all the old gear first, let NATO/nations waste their new fangled weapons/budgets on that.. then use their standard issue and advanced stuff.
The only other big mothballer is the US but shipping old gear to the EU would be too costly and the US home leagues get some security feeling from having stuff they can fix up and throw at anyone attempting to invade the US.. (lol).
If russia are using their old technology that they've had in mothballs, the numbers game would easily combat Ukranian forces in direct conflict. It means they're not going to waste money or risk their limited numbers of advanced weaponry.
a) NATO doesn't have a ready stock pile of ye-olde cheap weapons to throw at all the old gear that the Russians are deploying - even an old tank on the ground is a force to lightly armed enemy. So the cost per bang is high to NATO and low to Russia.
b) If Russia want to go on a blitzkrieg-esque rampage they will use all the old gear first, let NATO/nations waste their new fangled weapons/budgets on that.. then use their standard issue and advanced stuff.
The only other big mothballer is the US but shipping old gear to the EU would be too costly and the US home leagues get some security feeling from having stuff they can fix up and throw at anyone attempting to invade the US.. (lol).
Unless Russia have a few thousand more tanks and aircraft hiding up their sleeves there are currently enough anti tank and anti aircraft missiles in Ukraine to shoot them all down a few times over.
As far as I am aware the US actually hold War Reserve Stock distributed throughout Europe/NATO, that either US or other NATO countries can request to use. Now this can be anything from Ammo, fuel, basic supplies etc but there are also Stockpiles of older mothballed weaponry and vehicles.
Even we hold our own War Reserve Stock, what that exactly looks like I'm unsure.
Let's just hope if they go for it the West keep their word and sanction Russia to oblivion, I'm talking financial ostracisation, the works. Maybe it'll bite home enough that people will finally become sick of the dictator, the beginning of the end for Putin. Ha, just woke up and realised this man won't go for decades, he'll lockup, kill thousands before he does that.
West Germany must still be flooded with it. Whether they would have the cojones to prevent the USA from unmothballing it for action is a question.
Poland as well I'd hazard a guess, I dont know the current state of it but the Yanks were building a new forward storage base in Poland, Last I saw of it was a few years ago where they got the go ahead.
The main Idea is the kit is already in country. Its kept maintained and ready to use. All they have to do is fly the manpower across, mount up and roll out the door.
This seems a bit muddled, Russia isn't planning on fighting NATO and they do seem to have deployed their modern equipment and plenty of their well trained regular/professional troops, the Russian army is quite large (mix of regulars and conscripts + reservists) but not all of it is really equipped to engage in combat operations, they've got a vast landmass to cover and need to use troops internally in some regions, that doesn't require the same level of equipment and support as engaging with a peer adversary.
Various NATO countries have thrown stockpiles of weapons at the Ukrainians, I think this notion that Russia are going to rely on sending in old equipment they have had in mothballs to Ukraine is rather flawed, that doesn't appear to be the case based on what they've deployed, they're going to be risking incurring significant costs if this apparent invasion plan goes wrong or they attempt to hold significant territory while fighting an insurgency.
NLAW missiles are relatively inexpensive and can destroy just about any tank, IFV or APC Russia has in its inventory if it comes down to an insurgency campaign.
Yes but Russia still outnumbers the Ukrainians and if they gain air superiority early on then the Ukrainians are going to have a very difficult time, unlike the US and UK Russia isn't as careful re: civilian casualties. There was a press story today for example that they were going to attempt to use the "father of all bombs".
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 2,188
With NATO supplying Ukraine with these I wonder if it's done more harm than good. Instead of Russia rolling in are they more than likely just going to shell the hell out of them now?
As ww1 and 2 showed, artillery is great, but a well dug in foe can still escape the worst of it and inflict massive casualties, especially if they go in over confident of thier artillery having wiped most of the enemy out.
Unfortunately for some emotional control challenged individuals, the wet dreams of using the biggest and most obscure weapons unfit for situation become possible solutions. Typically someone in the chain has their head screwed on right and the actions and responses become rationalised to the current situation. The number of scenarios to use a 300m blast radius bomb are few and far between - certainly not in urban warfare where this will quickly become bogged down.
My point about Russia vs NATO doesn't have to be soldiers directly fighting, although there may be an urge to push against NATO boarders (and skirmishes happen) but the use of possible older stock as supplies to the Ukrainians.
- Status