"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

wlewisiii said:
This is an exquisite article by a former commander of US Army Europe. Enjoy!

I Commanded U.S. Army Europe. Here's What I Saw in the Russian and Ukrainian Armies.
Click to expand...

Writing this post as a musician and a vet, this is an interesting comparison.

It's true that the orchestration of a band and the orchestration of an operation are both complicated. I think the two main differences are in the facts that 1) a band is almost always smaller than an operational unit, meaning that the feat of coordination (while scary in both cases) is going to be easier in the smaller scale; and 2) you rarely get shot after a bad gig.

In seriousness, yes, there's a parallel, and more to her point, teamsmanship matters. A band is only as good as its weakest player, and a force is only as good as its weak link too. Let either of those links fall apart (sloppy drummer, crummy sergeant) and the whole thing goes to hell. The big difference is that dying onstage is a metaphor only.
 
Ah, sun, salt, and coral! And don't forget the mangroves! A stroll down memory lane. Spent many an hour down there on the fighter ramp driving those yellow tankers on my off duty part time job. Looks like they haven't changed a bit since the 1970s.
Biff, do they still do Hot Pad?
My barracks was about 200 yards from the approach end of Rwy13. A good night's sleep? Good luck! The morning breeze was usually out of the southeast, and the morning Logair bird usually arrived about two hours before reveille. Tired old Electras that always sounded like they were going to start shedding pieces any minute. Tired old prop synchronizers that would emit a symphony of beat frequencies every time the throttle jockey made a power adjustment. And Lockheed brakes ALWAYS squeal!
Those were the days, my friend, we thought they'd never end! We thought we'd play forever and a day.
 
Thumpalumpacus said:
....Of course any supply of arms or ammo from neutral parties to a belligerent is by international understanding an act of war and susceptible to interdiction....
Click to expand...
Maybe from an individuals personal interpretation, but not according to some international law.

E.g. when the USA supported Iraq in their war against Iran - no one claimed that he US had therefore declared war on Iran, neither had any Arab or Middle-east country claimed that the US waged or declared war on them by supplying Israel - even during their own Mid-east wars. Though France and Soviet Russia had supplied huge weapon deliveries to Iraq(during the Iran/Iraq war) Iran never claimed that they would see this as a declaraion of war by France or Russia. When the USA and others supported the Mujahedin in Afghanistan even Soviet-Russia never claimed that to be a declaration of war.
There is to my knowledge no international law that would forbid e.g. NATO members to supply weapons to the Ukraine (there are national laws e.g. Germany that forbid weapon sales or deliveries into war prone or war zone areas). However even those laws have not stopped Germany from supplying the Ukraine with weapons some weeks ago.

So I don't think that is the issue - it is IMO that NATO obviously is not in the full picture of the Czar's conventional forces and their actual strength. As such delivering "excessive amounts" of weapons "might" give Putin the propaganda tools towards his own people/country to launch an actual full attack onto the Ukraine - which "might" even include tactical nukes, but
not necessarily, however absolutely depending on the actual capability of Russia's conventional forces.

Regards
Jagdflieger
 
Last edited:
Wes,

It's funny what one remembers. The smells, the sounds, the weather. I remember the weight / feel of our harness & gear. Getting a laugh out of the crew chief while I looked at the forms and or did the walk around. Touching the nose of the beast I was about to ride. To me she was a living steed which gave me the gift of flight. The sounds of the Jet Fuel Starters (APU) winding up. Or the first time I was the last guy on the ramp to shut down and I finally heard the clanking of the fan blades as they moved. The sweat. The look on the crew chiefs face when you told him the jet was code 1 (no repairs needed).

Those were some good days.

I'm not familiar with "hot pad". If you mean running refuels, we called those the hot pits, and no we didn't do that at NAS Key West. I'm not sure if they did that there or not, we just didn't partake during any of the times I passed through.

Cheers,
Biff
 
Last edited:
When fighting we would use a common reference point known as Bulls Eye, or B/E. Bulls Eye is the center of the universe when fighting, with targeting and kill calls all made in reference to it. When TDY to NAS Key West, we called Sloppy Joes Bulls Eye, as it really was the center of our evenings universe.

Over the period of about 12 years I spilled my cookies on each of the four corners in front of that place. When you know you will live forever, such events are a mote of dust in your evenings festivities.

And the Mel Fisher Museum is where some of the treasure from the Spanish Galleon the Atocha is displayed.
 

Attachments

  • SJ2.jpg
    26.4 KB · Views: 18
  • SJ1.jpg
    34.3 KB · Views: 17
  • SJMap.png
    26 KB · Views: 15
SaparotRob said:
I think the big difference is that Russia itself is a combatant this time. I'm not sure how to compare it to the Soviet Union supplying North Vietnam while engaged with U.S. forces.
Click to expand...
To me the big difference is location. In Korea, Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan it was ALWAYS in someone else's backyard. Now, it's in the next door neighbors yard, and everyone is afraid of spill out or escalation. When Trump was in the WH it's my opine that the world looked at him as a bit of a wildcard, unpredictable. I think he was and is very calculating, meanwhile the world behaved and we didn't get into any new conflicts. I think the world is looking at Putin in the same way, with one difference. He isn't walking quietly while carrying and using his big stick.
 
SaparotRob said:
I think the big difference is that Russia itself is a combatant this time. I'm not sure how to compare it to the Soviet Union supplying North Vietnam while engaged with U.S. forces.
Click to expand...
The US had never considered the Soviet Unions weapons supply to North-Vietnam as being a deceleration of war by Russia onto the USA.
So nothing unusual by whatever countries supplying conventional weapons to whom ever.
The Cuba crisis I think is a far better comparison when it comes to a direct threat towards a Super power.

But the Czar will use even conventional "excessive" weapon support towards the Ukraine, to twist/ further convince his population towards this "necessary"war.

Regards
Jagdflieger
 
Last edited:

Scholarly opinion on this goes both ways, but as a practical matter, weapons are best destroyed before being put to use, which implies that each state can define what it considers as an act of war.
 

That's as much a matter of the threat of nuclear war as it is the historical backdrop of neutrality. We certainly had no problem bombing overland supply routes from China until the limitations on bombing were enacted.
 

Iconic Key West, FL Bar With Live Music | Sloppy Joe's Bar

Join us for the ultimate party experience! We're Still the Best Party in Town, bringing you non-stop fun and excitement. Don't miss out!
sloppyjoes.com
 
BiffF15 said:
Over the period of about 12 years I spilled my cookies on each of the four corners in front of that place. When you know you will live forever, such events are a mote of dust in your evenings festivities.
Click to expand...
Spent my day there during a cruise stop over. It was raining pretty hard so not much site seeing was done. I managed to sit at every seat at the bar so I can say I sat in the same seat as Ernest Hemmingway!
 
Jagdflieger said:
but that is exactly as to how the Czar tries to "justify" his war onto the Ukraine= which goes hand in hand with his ambition to resurrect the Czarist empire.

Regards
Jagdflieger
Click to expand...

The justification for the invasion of Ukraine had nothing to do with interdicting the shipment of weapons, from my understanding; it was, as you say, about rebuilding the old empire.

I'm not sure how your point here applies to my point about neutrality and weapons-shipments.
 
A Ukrainian official on Tuesday said that Russia is using mobile crematoriums to dispose of bodies in Mariupol in an attempt to cover up evidence of war crimes and hide the number of people that have died.

In an interview with CNN, Donestk region military governor Pavlo Kyrylenko said that Russian troops were taking the bodies in order to destroy them in "territory not controlled by Ukraine" in an attempt to hide "evidence of genocide."

"They are using mobile crematoriums and mobile cremation machines and, also, taking people out, taking bodies of the dead in the street and the dead from collapsing buildings," Kyrylenko said, adding they were taking the bodies to destroy them in "territory not controlled by Ukraine."

"They're hiding, since the emergence of the evidence of war crimes in Bucha and the evidence of genocide, they're now hiding the evidence," with the mobile creamtion chambers, he added.

Kyrylenko's comments come as Mariupol's mayor on Monday said that more than 10,000 civilians could be dead in the city. Kyrylenko upped that estimate, saying officials are now looking at between 20,000 and 22,000 dead.

Donestk official: Russia using mobile crematoriums to dispose of bodies

A Ukrainian official on Tuesday said that Russia is using mobile crematoriums to dispose of bodies in Mariupol in an attempt to cover up evidence of war crimes and hide the number of people that ha…
thehill.com

It's galling to know that Putin and the other architects of this atrocity will likely never face justice ... and likely that the Russian people will never know of it, too -- meaning denialism will probably flourish after the war.
 
NATO states had shipped increasingly weapons to the Ukraine already before Putin's attack on February. This and the prevailing intention of NATO and the Ukraine viewing onto even a closer cooperation with each other, was what gave Putin the reason to justify his expansion dreams.
I suspect (I might be very wrong) Putin in his initial attack only used in vast majority secondary and conscript units (mixed with some elite units) hoping for an easy victory.
Continued weapon deliveries from NATO (if Russia holds a far more effective conventional force in reserve) might get him to use those and even achieve a broad consent in
doing so by the population.

Regards
Jagdflieger
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

  • Total: 2 (members: 1, guests: 1)

    Similar threads

    M
    All V-22's Grounded
    Replies
    2
    Views
    875
    GTX
    M
    All This For The Low, Low Price of .....
    Replies
    19
    Views
    1K
    MIflyer
    M
    M
    The Wrath of KAAN?
    Replies
    3
    Views
    562
    Snautzer01
    M
    What Is The Point Of This?
    Replies
    3
    Views
    357
    SaparotRob
    M
    USAF Provides More Proof That UFOs are Real!
    Replies
    0
    Views
    380
    MIflyer
    M
    Menu
    Log in
    Register