Dumb war question

orca64 said:
I disagree. The first targets should be the Russians air defenses. But the Ukrainians don’t have the capability to identify and offensively target those. Nearly simultaneously, they’d need to attack and neutralize Russian awacs capabilities, and engage their air forces in the air and on the ground. But the ukranians don’t have that capability either. Once air superiority is attained, the convoys are the main targets. But since they cannot complete those first two tasks, they will never attain air superiority, or even parity. The convoys are the logistics and support that allow the artillery, armor and infantry to function. The bullets, bombs and beans. But the ukranians are unable to destroy those convoys. So regardless of how bravely the ukranians armies and people fight, the superior weight of Russian artillery, armor and infantry will eventually grind them down and win.
Air Superiority is absolutely essential to win a war, but it cannot win the war. In the end, it always comes down to boots on the ground, unless you can take away those convoys.
If not, you’ll get a bloody, slogging mess of a war. And that’s what we’re seeing now.
Click to expand...

If the Ukrainians were attacking them, I agree with you. But if it were us, I'd go for the aircraft first. Mostly to catch them close before they run away east and out of reach of our fighters. Partly because it's a measurable, visible, and immediate effect. Tough to cover up those losses. Finally, because it reduces all of their offensive capability. None of this would be about winning, I agree with that. But we could change the environment a bit.
 
Around here, we have the "thruway", which is sometimes I-90, and sometimes I-87. The 87 part is called the "northway", except when it's not and it's the "thruway". I don't know why, except that it goes north, and people aren't all that imaginative. It takes a while to get used to the whole thruway vs northway thing. I've been here about 30 years, and it still seems goofy to me. I say "I-90" and people who were born here look at me puzzled, until they do the math in their head and figure out what I mean. Oh, and the little bit of "thruway" that goes to Mass? That's the "Berkshire Spur". Which leads into The Berkshires.

Don't get me started on bridges. There is some local convention that you can't go over a bridge unless it has a name. I think it's a Dutch thing.
 
Technically it's the "Adirondack Northway", not part of the Thruway, it doesn't have tolls like the thruway does.

Then there's the "Quickway", which is the NY17 west of Harriman, though it's soon to become I-something. 17 continues south into NJ but it's anything but "quick" there...
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
I get that we don't want to go fight Russia because I saw War Games in the 80s and I know how it will end. I don't have time to track down Joshaua's dad on that island and get the tic-tac-toe game going.

BUT why couldn't we "accidentally" ship the Ukrane a bunch of A-10s.
I get my neighbor's mail al the time.

The Ukraine could be all "Oops I accidentally opened these because I thought it was for me"
The Ukraine's wife sees the planes on the counter and the envelope is in the trash so she also assumes they are theirs and decides to paint them in that weird blue and white cammo that they like over there.

Then we go on facebook and say "Has anyone seen our planes? It shows they were delivered but we ever got them. and the photo in the delivery notification looks like a different front porch"

Then the Ukraine is like "Oh crap, we accidentally used them. Thanks. It saved our lives, we will send them to you right away"

Then we would be like "Ya know what, nevermind we were going to try to retire them a few more times plus we are working on the A-11 anyway."
Click to expand...
A couple of C17's (or C5's) full of Stingers and Javelins wouldn't hurt. We could ship them "next day" delivery to Poland and have them in Ukraine asap.
 
Just a random comment on the aircraft to Ukrainian military issue. Just giving them aircraft, even MiGs they ‘know’ how to fly, what about the very important support system?

OK, maybe the pilots wouldn’t be Uber current with flight proficiency, I’ll accept that. What about maintenance, armament, then the know-how to bring it all together?

You’ve seen the matrix, about the ground support structure required to get a plane up for one 1.3 hour combat sortie. I’m thinking we’re better off now passing the shoulder launched missiles & such right now.
 
sourdough44 said:
Just a random comment on the aircraft to Ukrainian military issue. Just giving them aircraft, even MiGs they ‘know’ how to fly, what about the very important support system?

OK, maybe the pilots wouldn’t be Uber current with flight proficiency, I’ll accept that. What about maintenance, armament, then the know-how to bring it all together?

You’ve seen the matrix, about the ground support structure required to get a plane up for one 1.3 hour combat sortie. I’m thinking we’re better off now passing the shoulder launched missiles & such right now.
Click to expand...


The ukranians still have most of their aircraft. They cannot fly them effectively, or in many cases, at all, because the Russian army has incredibly effective layered, embedded air defenses at every level. From small unit to large convoy, they’re covered. They’re also very good. No barefoot goatherds running the zsu’s in this war.

any mig aircraft given would be serviceable by the ukranians. Munitions and ammunition would be common. NATO aircraft would not be.
 
Tantalum said:
Oh boy!


PS - so far Judy's explanation made the most sense, I.e the Balkans, the Mediterranean, etc


PPS - I don't understand 'the 5' thing either but at this point it just sounds right. It would be awkward to say to somebody "I drove to LA, yeah I took 5"
Click to expand...
Let me help: I took interstate five; I took I five.

Just two examples of how not to sound like a douche
 
sourdough44 said:
Just a random comment on the aircraft to Ukrainian military issue. Just giving them aircraft, even MiGs they ‘know’ how to fly, what about the very important support system?

OK, maybe the pilots wouldn’t be Uber current with flight proficiency, I’ll accept that. What about maintenance, armament, then the know-how to bring it all together?

You’ve seen the matrix, about the ground support structure required to get a plane up for one 1.3 hour combat sortie. I’m thinking we’re better off now passing the shoulder launched missiles & such right now.
Click to expand...
But they have to remember to keep those charged up so they work.
 
This thread beautifully weaves together two improbable themes, war and interstates. I'm hearing a symphony with two themes woven together in point-counterpoint.

Brad W, you must be under about 45 years old. It hasn't been called "the Ukraine" in more than 30 years, since it became independent.

I didn't really mean we should ship in A-10s. I just meant that the convoy does raise that vision.
 
Sluggo63 said:
As a former KC-135 pilot, a large part of our mission was to support the nuclear bomber leg of the strategic triad. B-52s and KC-135s, ever since the SAC days, were constantly exercised to make sure they could meet the mission timing in case the balloon ever went up. This was more prevalent in the SAC days where tankers and bombers were on constant, 24-hour alert.

Then, in 1991, when the alert came down, we still retained that mission, albeit without the round the clock presence. But, in order to have crews still proficient in those procedures, we participated in periodic exercises and inspections to practice and evaluate how crews and leadership would respond in case they were needed. Usually these exercises would last several days and be "scenario based," meaning intel messages would be created and released to the leadership which then would be acted upon. The exercises were always meant to be realistic, so it always started with messages early on about rising tensions, then outward aggression which would cause crews to be put on alert, with the culmination of the week being a launch of the strategic forces.

What's going on right now is eerily reminiscent of those exercises. This is exactly how they would start. Country A invades Country B. Country A isn't doing so well in the invasion, so they decide to use a tactical battlefield nuke, then it escalates from there.

I'm not saying that that's how it'll go down, but man, it sure does look familiar.
Click to expand...

I don't know if tac nukes are still a thing. In the late 80's, before the dissolution of the Soviet Union, there were nuclear artillery rounds available that could be fired out of 8 inch guns. The overall strategic battle plan was for FDC to nuke right over us if we couldn't hold the Fulda gap in the event of a Soviet invasion. Kind of a scary thought, actually. I'm pretty sure the nuclear rounds had all been decommissioned by the 90's but I don't know if they still exist in a tactical missile form. I suppose they probably do.
 
judypilot said:
This thread beautifully weaves together two improbable themes, war and interstates. I'm hearing a symphony with two themes woven together in point-counterpoint.

Brad W, you must be under about 45 years old. It hasn't been called "the Ukraine" in more than 30 years, since it became independent.

I didn't really mean we should ship in A-10s. I just meant that the convoy does raise that vision.
Click to expand...

Interstates are key logistical high speed travel corridors during wartime. So, not improbable at all.
 
@Sac Arrow i read in a military rag a few weeks ago the Russians still have smaller tactical nukes.

The US, I read, started building them again a few years ago as a defensive measure, the concern being Russia might use a tactical nuke with the belief the USA wouldn’t retaliate with a much larger strategic nuke. We wanted to have an equivalent response as a deterrent.

I’m not military. Sounded rationale to me though.
 
SkyChaser said:
Interstates are always "I-something", but other than that, it depends on your familiarity with said road. It could highway 22 or county road 90, or just 22 and 90. LOL
Click to expand...
Could it be because of the number of digits? Back in the northeast we'd say 'route 2' or something to that effect. The 163 here nor I-15 get the whole 'THE' treatment. Take rt 163 or hop on I-15
 
Tantalum said:
Could it be because of the number of digits? Back in the northeast we'd say 'route 2' or something to that effect. The 163 here nor I-15 get the whole 'THE' treatment. Take rt 163 or hop on I-15
Click to expand...

I don't think so? I never thought about it so much. LOL But I'd take 9 to the airport, and if describing an alternate road to work, I'd go up 8 instead of 16, so the number of digits doesn't seem to make a difference?
 
Terry M - 3CK (Chicago) said:
@Sac Arrow i read in a military rag a few weeks ago the Russians still have smaller tactical nukes.

The US, I read, started building them again a few years ago as a defensive measure, the concern being Russia might use a tactical nuke with the belief the USA wouldn’t retaliate with a much larger strategic nuke. We wanted to have an equivalent response as a deterrent.

I’m not military. Sounded rationale to me though.
Click to expand...
Given the context, Can one use the words nuclear and rational in the same sentence?
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Let me help: I took interstate five; I took I five.

Just two examples of how not to sound like a douche
Click to expand...

Hating on Californians for freeway naming conventions is akin to us calling out the Southeast for referring to lunch as 'supper.'
 
Maybe the best way to create a no-fly zone would be to give them enough surface to air weapons that the Russians would just decide not to fly there.
 
Sac Arrow said:
Hating on Californians for freeway naming conventions is akin to us calling out the Southeast for referring to lunch as 'supper.'
Click to expand...

I don’t think you have a good concept of the South’s linguistic conventions. In some households here lunch is referred to as dinner. In most, however, lunch is referred to as lunch . Lunch is never referred to as supper. But supper is sometimes referred to as dinner. Mostly by uppity people and transplants.
 
Bill said:
Just as we helped the Mujahideen, I'm sure we're helping Ukraine. Under the table of course. Probably just this side of legal.
Click to expand...

I hope we do a better job than that. We've abandoned the Afghan people twice now. And, we haven't taken care of all the veterans that went over there they way we should have. The "right" talks tough, and makes commitments. And, when the media gets tired of reporting about it, interest fades, and the "right" loses to the "left". The "left" "brings our troops home", reneging on our commitments. And, after the media gets tired of reporting on it, we forget about the troops. We do this over and over again.

We have treaty obligations in Europe. We need to be clear and assertive about our willingness to honor those obligations. And, we need to hold our allies accountable for their obligations as well.

As a veteran, and someone who's traveled the world extensively, thanks to Uncle Sammy, I gotta say again: 'I hope we do better than that!"
 
kyleb said:
I don’t think you have a good concept of the South’s linguistic conventions. In some households here lunch is referred to as dinner. In most, however, lunch is referred to as lunch . Lunch is never referred to as supper. But supper is sometimes referred to as dinner. Mostly by uppity people and transplants.
Click to expand...

I always understood dinner to be the big meal, whether it's mid day (Sundays or holidays) or evening (usually). If you have dinner at lunchtime, the evening meal is supper. At least that's how it was when I grew up in the northeast.

If you're eating while driving on the interstate through a war zone, though...
 
kyleb said:
I don’t think you have a good concept of the South’s linguistic conventions. In some households here lunch is referred to as dinner. In most, however, lunch is referred to as lunch . Lunch is never referred to as supper. But supper is sometimes referred to as dinner. Mostly by uppity people and transplants.
Click to expand...
And (sigh) if your wife's family is a bunch of Danes, you might hear a midnight snack, a very late dinner, or some other nocturnal raid on the kitchen as "lunch".
 
kyleb said:
I don’t think you have a good concept of the South’s linguistic conventions. In some households here lunch is referred to as dinner. In most, however, lunch is referred to as lunch . Lunch is never referred to as supper. But supper is sometimes referred to as dinner. Mostly by uppity people and transplants.
Click to expand...

If I'm following the logic here correctly, then there is an instance where supper could be lunch, even if not by direct reference.

Where I was born in the midwest, supper=dinnner=the big meal at the end of the day. Breakfast was still breakfast and lunch was still lunch.
 
Sac Arrow said:
If I'm following the logic here correctly, then there is an instance where supper could be lunch, even if not by direct reference.

Where I was born in the midwest, supper=dinnner=the big meal at the end of the day. Breakfast was still breakfast and lunch was still lunch.
Click to expand...

Being a yankee I have never in my life heard the term supper being used in place of lunch. I’ve only heard supper and dinner be interchangeable. In the south I still don’t speak the language but I’ve still never heard supper in lieu of lunch. I do know that now I’m hungry.
 
In Ontario Canada it was breakfast, dinner, supper. Since I moved to California it’s breakfast, lunch and dinner. Great. Now I’m hungry!
 
Having grown up in God’s country, dinner was when you ate in the evening at the fancy table. Supper was all the other evening meals at the normal table. Breakfast/lunch were always breakfast/lunch.
 
eman1200 said:
Being a yankee I have never in my life heard the term supper being used in place of lunch. I’ve only heard supper and dinner be interchangeable. In the south I still don’t speak the language but I’ve still never heard supper in lieu of lunch. I do know that now I’m hungry.
Click to expand...
According to my wife's Oma, lunch was a cold meal served midday, but if it was hot you called it supper. Dinner was always the evening meal, which was always hot.

My family used dinner/supper interchangeably for the evening meal. Although like @Radar Contact "dinner" had a slightly fancier connotation.
 
eman1200 said:
Being a yankee I have never in my life heard the term supper being used in place of lunch. I’ve only heard supper and dinner be interchangeable. In the south I still don’t speak the language but I’ve still never heard supper in lieu of lunch. I do know that now I’m hungry.
Click to expand...

Nor have I (but we both already know that.) I'm just saying that by conjecture, if dinner could be lunch, and supper could be dinner, well, I mean, there we have it.
 
Sac Arrow said:
If I'm following the logic here correctly, then there is an instance where supper could be lunch, even if not by direct reference.
Click to expand...

I don't think the transitive property applies in this instance.
 
Mxfarm said:
there should be a country song in there somewhere. ;)
Click to expand...

Some say dinnah, with a whiskey, and I say suppah, with a beer
This lonely cowboooooy, eats alone
That is what a cowbooooy is about...

(sad boom twang rhythm follows)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top