The Ship Model Forum

by **JWintjes** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 3:07 am

Werner wrote: Going three months without pay might keep a young man with no prospects in barracks, but on the battlefield the same man is likely to be less cooperative.

But that is exactly where the bayonets come ine - you see, that's the beauty in it...

Jorit

by **Werner** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 11:36 pm

Chuck wrote: Nothing encourages brave Russian troops to storm the enemy more than the serried ranks of Motherland�s bayonets pricking their backs.

A much diminished Russia that has trouble housing and feeding their soldiers, who lack a zampolit to assure them of the political necessity of the operation and what happens to those who let down leaders like Comrade Stalin.

Going three months without pay might keep a young man with no prospects in barracks, but on the battlefield the same man is likely to be less cooperative.

by **Guest** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 11:30 pm

JWintjes wrote:
Chuck wrote:

Unlike with some other countries that reflexively drop to one knee whenever "our own fighting men" are mentioned, the Russians do not shy away from the hard fact that it is sometimes one's own cannon fodder which are the the most inconvenient in a combat situation. Such realism is one benefit of having a peasant/serf system until 1918.

Hey, I completely agree with you - certainly there are situations where it's a distinct advantage to have 155mm HE on your own lines as "special encouragement" instead of an extra day off afterwards...

Jorit

Nothing encourages brave Russian troops to storm the enemy more than the serried ranks of Motherland�s bayonets pricking their backs.

by **JWintjes** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 7:38 am

Chuck wrote:

Unlike with some other countries that reflexively drop to one knee whenever "our own fighting men" are mentioned, the Russians do not shy away from the hard fact that it is sometimes one's own cannon fodder which are the the most inconvenient in a combat situation. Such realism is one benefit of having a peasant/serf system until 1918.

Hey, I completely agree with you - certainly there are situations where it's a distinct advantage to have 155mm HE on your own lines as "special encouragement" instead of an extra day off afterwards...

Jorit

by **Werner** » Fri Sep 14, 2007 12:05 pm

Russian generals are going to find it harder to control public opinion than in times past. Using this thing against a breakaway republic is going to generate the kind of international outrage that garners a general a short walk in the birches behind the hill. Even killing the reporters no longer works effectively.

I'll give them credit... the press adored the explosion, even if it was larger than the sub-kiloton warheads the US is developing (and being roundly condemned by the media) for the Hard Target Penetrator.

by **Guest** » Fri Sep 14, 2007 11:51 am

JWintjes wrote:
Werner wrote: Such a colossal weapon could only be delivered if you have air superiority, against buildings and similar structures, or larger formations of infantry on foot. Where would Russia possibly find use for such a weapon?
Let's see, they are Russians.

Well, judging from past experience I'd say they use it to support their own troops in close quarter house-to-house fighting...

Jorit

Unlike with some other countries that reflexively drop to one knee whenever "our own fighting men" are mentioned, the Russians do not shy away from the hard fact that it is sometimes one's own cannon fodder which are the the most inconvenient in a combat situation. Such realism is one benefit of having a peasant/serf system until 1918.

by **JWintjes** » Fri Sep 14, 2007 4:51 am

Werner wrote: Such a colossal weapon could only be delivered if you have air superiority, against buildings and similar structures, or larger formations of infantry on foot. Where would Russia possibly find use for such a weapon?

Let's see, they are Russians.

Well, judging from past experience I'd say they use it to support their own troops in close quarter house-to-house fighting...

Jorit

by **Werner** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 10:12 pm

Tracy White wrote:Of course; the Russians aren't seen as a beacon of good in the world so they don't get thumped on as much when they do kill the inconvenients.

We used Thermobarics in Afghanistan
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... lu-118.htm (Warning - Pop-ups galore!)

Yes, we used them in a cave. The population density of Afghanistan compares more favorably with Alaska than Chechnya....

Incidentally, the Navy tested it against a decommissioned frigate. Apart from some impressive photos and antenna damage, it really didn't do much to the ship. I imagine it would have swept the deck of people, though.

Use Firefox with AdBlockPlus. It's so effective Google has threatened to stop it's partnership with Mozilla.

by **Tracy White** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 10:07 pm

Of course; the Russians aren't seen as a beacon of good in the world so they don't get thumped on as much when they do kill the inconvenients.

We used Thermobarics in Afghanistan
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... lu-118.htm (Warning - Pop-ups galore!)

by **Werner** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 8:40 pm

The Beeb says it is...

Trust the Russian mindset to be not particularly concerned with civilian casualties or collateral damage. This is at a time when the USAF and USN have quite literally turned to dropping "bricks" (concrete shaped like a bomb with a GPS system attached) in Iraq to protect civilians and their property.

by **Tracy White** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 8:36 pm

I liked the BLU-81s as "instant LZs" in the jungle and big mine sweepers in the desert.

I'm not sure that the FOABs is a FAE, but if so its use may peeve those who advocate the Geneva Convention.

by **Werner** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 8:31 pm

Yeah, 15,000 pound FAE. Terrific. Great, cheap way to make up for the lack of your own GPS. Imagine the collateral damage.

Such a colossal weapon could only be delivered if you have air superiority, against buildings and similar structures, or larger formations of infantry on foot. Where would Russia possibly find use for such a weapon?

Oh, yeah. Break-away Republics (hint, hint).

This is from the "make the bomb big enough and you don't even have to transport it" school of arms.

by **Tracy White** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 8:14 pm

You must like the Father of all Bombs then.

by **JWintjes** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 10:20 am

Werner wrote:
JWintjes wrote:I must say paving the way, so to say, still seems to be the better option to me...
You mean like this?

Actually, I was more thinking into showering with this one:

Of course, that might just be an option as well:

Incidentally, the US has proven over and over again that it can fly missions into "Indian country" and drop teams or supplies. This happened in Gulf I and II, and also in other places with reasonable frequency.

Of course.

But I love the pyrotechnics, you see...

Jorit

by **Cadman** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 9:31 am

I think I would prefer a version that you are on the top side. Just in case the parachute doesn't deploy and you have to make a BELLY landing.

by **Werner** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 8:46 am

JWintjes wrote:I must say paving the way, so to say, still seems to be the better option to me...

You mean like this?

Incidentally, the US has proven over and over again that it can fly missions into "Indian country" and drop teams or supplies. This happened in Gulf I and II, and also in other places with reasonable frequency.

by **JWintjes** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 3:26 am

Tracy White wrote: Getting the guys out again isn't as large of a concern; you can send a Pave Low / CV-22 in for extraction. Using them for insertion is less wise due to the attention they get at the point they land, but for extraction you don't care as much.

You still have then 170 miles of bandit country in front of you - potentially with a lot of triple A around.

I must say paving the way, so to say, still seems to be the better option to me...

Jorit

by **JWintjes** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 3:24 am

ar wrote:Could it not have plasma shielding?
Whispers that I have heard.

Nah, that wouldn't work with with the flux compensator installed, or so I was told...

Jorit

by ar » Wed Sep 12, 2007 7:49 pm

Could it not have plasma shielding?
Whispers that I have heard.

Tracy White wrote:Which they aren't in this case; it's conventional metal.

I'm not saying it couldn't be stealthy, just that the current design is not. An operator wanting to be stealthy would need to wear a stealth suit that either had no metal or had good, reliable RAM over the metal fittings. I don't think they've been able to put that thing on a radar range yet.

by **Tracy White** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 6:07 pm

Which they aren't in this case; it's conventional metal.

I'm not saying it couldn't be stealthy, just that the current design is not. An operator wanting to be stealthy would need to wear a stealth suit that either had no metal or had good, reliable RAM over the metal fittings. I don't think they've been able to put that thing on a radar range yet.

The Ship Model Forum

Strap-on stealth jetplane in testing

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Strap-on stealth jetplane in testing