Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar

Status
Not open for further replies.
woppy101 said:
Sorry I must have misunderstood what you were saying, I took your post as you were saying, all Russia had to do to transfer a ship from another fleet to the Black Sea was say “it’s returning to made up home port”
Click to expand...
That wasn't my point, I said I didn't know if they could game it like that. I immediately checked the convention wording, linked to it, and found a quote from Turkey about "returning to base". Even though I linked the convention three people have quoted articles to me since. Light the blue touch paper and stand well back :D
 
Tuppy_Glossop said:
That wasn't my point, I said I didn't know if they could game it like that. I immediately checked the convention wording, linked to it, and found a quote from Turkey about "returning to base". Even though I linked the convention three people have quoted articles to me since. Light the blue touch paper and stand well back :D
Click to expand...
if it was that easy the Russians would already have done it especially after the Moskva(Black Sea flagship) was promoted to a submarine, the fact of the matter is, the Turks aren’t stupid enough to fall for “we’re returning to our home port”, No Russian Navy vessels will transit the Bosphorus while they are in conflict with Ukraine.
 
Roar87 said:
I just don't think you know what you're talking about, like a lot of people in here.
Click to expand...

For context, this includes Roar, who just the other day described the Novocherkassk as

Roar87 said:
I think blowing up an already disabled landing craft in port is pretty meaningless
Click to expand...

When it had just come into dock carrying what was suspected to be a cache of weapons.
 
Tuppy_Glossop said:
Ships with a home port on the Black Sea have the right to return to base unfettered by Turkey, even during a war. Whether or not Russia can transfer ships from, say, the Northern Fleet to the Black Sea fleet and still enjoy this privilege is beyond my ken.
Click to expand...


They can, but at start of war Turkey put a block on new warships entering. That doesn't stop them using commercial ships for military purposes though, such as carrying weapons
 
Last edited:
Roar87 said:
If Putin did this the US Navy would 100% defend the Falklands, it wouldn't be a case of needing to trigger article 5, it would be a case of the US defending their ally.
Click to expand...
Ahh yes just like they defended them in 1982 :p

Also as mentioned above article 5 could not be triggered by an attack on the Falklands (hence why it wasn't in 1982).


delta0 said:
Aggression outside the Ukraine will likely go towards a neighbouring country such as Poland, Lithuania, Finland etc. They want the old Soviet empire back and targeting countries beyond this isn’t remotely viable.
Click to expand...
Just pointing out, only one of those countries was part of the Soviet Union.
 
Last edited:
Tuppy_Glossop said:
Isn't the current Argentinian nutter/leader in love with the US? I thought he withdrew their application to join BRICS.
Click to expand...


He plans to adopt the U.S. dollar as the official currency of Argentina, that's probably a big reason why he withdrew from brics, as brics wants to adopt it at own single currency (because brics is a collection of countries with currencies that nobody wants)
 
Last edited:
delta0 said:
This is huge if true. He is the highest ranking officer and reports directly to Putin.
Click to expand...
Hopefully not true as he is basically the Russian equivalent of General Melchett and so far has caused more damage to Russia's war effort than any other military officer on either side xD


Colonel_Klinck said:
I just don't see why Putin would do it. In a conventional war he loses massively, in a nuclear exchange everyone loses.
Click to expand...
That's sadly not as weak a position as it seems.

If your enemy losing means you losing also then that means you're going to want to try and engineer a stalemate, and if they know this they can try to engineer one as favourable to them as possible :(
 
Last edited:
FishThrower said:
learning to fly a plane doesn't take a couple of weeks training.... the pilots will by flying a ten million dollar plane, if they dont know how to fly them properly thats a lot of money wasted if they end up nose diving in the sea. You have to be realistic when giving stuff away otherwise you will cause problems for yourself
Click to expand...
To add context to this, when the USN retired their final F-14D squadron and they transitioned to the F/A-18F it took six months of flight time, simulator time and classroom time. And that was highly experienced naval aviators transitioning from an American jet with a digital cockpit to another American jet with a digital cockpit. Now granted the Ukrainian F-16 training will be as fast tracked as possible, probably less relaxation time, but these boys coming from MiG-29s and Su-27s are going from a Soviet jet with analogue dials and cabled controls to an American jet with digital displays and fly by wire controls. Even the artificial horizon, the most basic (and important) thing in the cockpit is going to look and work completely different to what they're used to.


Mr Jack said:
Possible, but I'm not sure stringing your supply lines through hostile, mountainous, territory in order to attack a fortified, mountainous border region is actually that much better.
Click to expand...
At least it would lower the chances of more of their ships turning into submarines, I would have typed "eliminated" not "lower" but with Russia's combat performance nothing would surprise me at this point.
 
Last edited:
Roar87 said:
There's a lot Russia could do, think of everyone who dislikes the West, NATO plus our allies and what Russia could provide to them in the future, even in terms of just knowledge.

Russia's Navy isn't small, do you think their entire Navy was in the Black Sea? They still have one of the largest Navies in the world, I'd guess 3rd behind the US and China. They have a lot of surface ships and submarines. I'm not being funny, but if you don't know this, should you be commenting on a war?

I just don't think you know what you're talking about, like a lot of people in here.
Click to expand...

Well that seem to kick up a fuss.

Russian navy on paper. Like the Army. Like the Airforce.

You are aware that 3 Chinese Carriers (on paper) are actually sat in dock due to the real fact they have one meter cracks across their decks?

You're right - there is a lot of rubbish spouted by quoting paper numbers.
 
bingham67 said:
Click to expand...

I usually like Tendar but this is hyperbole and it’s the same hyperbole I've seen recently, who this war going to be between NATO/Russia!?!? Russia has lost 300,00 men, 6000 tanks, 100s of aircraft, over 20 ships against a nation with no navy, no modern air force getting supplied with mostly surplus NATO weapons at a drip feed pace while Russia also has the safety that none of these weapons can be fire into Russia. Russia is not a well organised military with a healthy economy like Germany did before the war, it currently being bleed dry and unwilling to give up land where it would benefit them.

In a war, America will do what it always does, it will throw everything at them whenever their forces are, shock and awe will be back on the table.
 
Last edited:
ubersonic said:
Ahh yes just like they defended them in 1982 :p

Also as mentioned above article 5 could not be triggered by an attack on the Falklands (hence why it wasn't in 1982).
Click to expand...

In 1982 Russia didn't invade the Falklands, Argentina did. If Hawaii was invaded by China, do you think the UK would remain neutral? Of course not, we'd sail half the Royal Navy to the Pacific, or free up US assets so they could assist.
 
NickK said:
You are aware that 3 Chinese Carriers (on paper) are actually sat in dock due to the real fact they have one meter cracks across their decks?
Click to expand...
In all fairness that's still better than Russia's last remaining aircraft carrier sat with the dock in a gaping hole in it's deck :D

On another note it's strange that China's Soviet carriers have the cracking issue yet India's Soviet carrier is fine, must be a Chinese fabrication issue rather than a Soviet designs issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom