The Russia is getting more evil thread

[sillhouette]

Russian mines maybe also fleeing the combat zones?

Turkey disables mine in Black Sea - Turkish Minute

[ShivaX]

Robert Evans (The Only Robert Evans)

[Calelari]

That’s an oddly specific simile.

[Destarius]

I mean, that’s got to be a trap right? No one in their right minds would build a defensive line like this?

[dtolman]

The northern / eastern line follows the south bank of a river. The South/West line seems arbitrarily placed whereever they could dig it. The extension to the NW might be to protect the supply lines to Kreminna (outside the fortifications) - which is the current nexus for defenses north of the cities.

[Grifman]

@Canuck

@spiffy

@schurem

keeps the Ukrainians from shelling the pontoon bridge.

Maybe Ukraine should hit any bridges with now with whatever they got. If Russia is in trouble, better to capture or kill then have them reinforce the other side of the bank with hostages.

I think the conventional thinking is always leave your enemy an escape route; the idea being that you’d rather they ran away than actually have to fight them.

That’s one theory, the other is better to kill/capture all of them rather than have to fight them again.

[Grifman]

@Mark_Weston

@BloodyBattleBrain

My understanding was that Berlin was deliberatly bombed to provoke Hitler, amd that it worked.

The Germans dropped a few bombs on London; as it turned out later, by accident. Churchill immediately ordered a raid on Berlin in retaliation. And the escalation continued. AFAIK - and I haven’t read anything super-current - there’s no evidence that this was deliberate policy, or that Churchill or the military wanted London to be bombed.

There’s a lot of hindsight embedded in theories like this. Now we know that the Blitz had minimal effects on British morale or the war economy, it’s easy to imagine some cunning plan to divert the Luftwaffe. But that wasn’t the information that Churchill was working from. Contemporary estimates of the effects of a full-scale bombing campaign on London included 100,000 deaths in a few days, and the complete inability for any government body to operate from inside the city. In fact, there were 40,000 deaths, nationwide, during the entire war, and the government never left London (apart from some early precautions that were quickly abandoned).

Strategic bombing was never the overnight war winner it’s pre-war proponents thought it was. But despite controversy, it was effective - at least the US campaign was. Once the American settled on oil and transportation, they crippled the German army/air force. They couldn’t move their mechanized forces, their air force couldn’t train pilots adequately, and their manufacturing system fell apart with components unable to move from one factory to another. It just took a lot of experience and the development of the P-51 as a long range escort to make it possible.

[Grifman]

The USSR’s population was greater than that of the US.

[Grifman]

They sure are giving up a lot of territory, most of northern Luhansk, for that river line. It mirrors the rumored withdrawal in Kherson, falling back to more defensible river lines. The problem is that a static defense like this allows Ukraine to pick their spots All they have to do is overwhelm one single point - unless the Russians have adequate reserves to counterattack, their line will easily be rolled up. I’m guessing their hoping that their newly conscripted forces can hold lines like this. But that salient is insane, it’s just asking for trouble.’

FYI, most of that river line are the old 2014 lines held before the current war started, They are giving up all of the gains in the north since the beginning of the war if this is true.

Here is the map with the English alphabet, which helps understand where the line really runs:

Artoir

Photos from last week:

Artoir

[sillhouette]

U.S. Mission to the UN

[Strollen]

Yup in 1990 USSR population was 288 million vs 250 million for the US. I believe the gap was even large earlier in the cold war. Although as always one should be cautious about accepting numbers from USSR or Russia.

[Strollen]

Ok Armchair generals where do you attack, if you want to capture lots of Russian soldiers?

[sillhouette]

Stalingrad, late 1942?

[Destarius]

“Capture?” laughs in 155mm

[spiffy]

@Grifman

The USSR’s population was greater than that of the US.

But it never came to a land war where it would have made a difference. Here and now, 140 million, is still a large pot to pull more soldiers over a long haul, even with the 700k who have fled and the 200k+ they managed recently. I guess the silver lining is, without taking from Moscow or St.Petersburg, being politically dangerous, you’re drawing able bodied men from lots of smaller settlements, meaning the impact to the functioning of each city and Russian society is more pronounced, I would expect.

[Sabotai]

@spiffy

@Grifman

The USSR’s population was greater than that of the US.

But it never came to a land war where it would make a difference. Here and now, 140 million, is still a large pot to pull more soldiers over a long haul, even with the 700k who have fled and the 200k+ they managed recently. I guess the silver lining is, without taking from Moscow or St.Petersburg, being politically dangerous, you’re drawing able bodied men from lots of smaller settlements, meaning the impact to the functioning of each city and Russian society is more pronounced, I would expect.

The average life expectancy of Russian men of 66,4 years does not help. Now if they stopped drinking…

[TheWombat]

@Grifman

Strategic bombing was never the overnight war winner it’s pre-war proponents thought it was. But despite controversy, it was effective - at least the US campaign was. Once the American settled on oil and transportation, they crippled the German army/air force. They couldn’t move their mechanized forces, their air force couldn’t train pilots adequately, and their manufacturing system fell apart with components unable to move from one factory to another. It just took a lot of experience and the development of the P-51 as a long range escort to make it possible.

Yeah, the question really isn’t whether the Combined Bomber Offensive hampered German war efforts; it clearly did. The questions (other than the easily dismissed grandiose claims of the “airpower wins all on its own” crowd) really revolve around whether the campaign was worth the expenditure of lives and materiel, and whether it was morally defensible. On the former, it seems yes, given the results overall, and the possible costs of facing a much more effective German industrial base. On the latter, well, that depends on one’s view of mass industrial warfare in general I suppose.

[Canuck]

Malcom Gladwell has written a good book on the subject called The Bomber Mafia.

[Janster]

Glad to see they are having problems…

The Russian war narrative after mobilization

So, seemingly Russian mobiliation has been successful, however, they haven’t got enough to win this, and this will lead to more waves of mobilisations, 1st is just done with I guess, and 2nd wave is ongoing now…

300k it aint, and never will be, but the Russian populace don’t know that yet…they will find out soon.

[ooomalley]

@Canuck

Malcom Gladwell has written a good book on the subject called The Bomber Mafia.

I haven’t read this one of his, but based on the ones I’ve read he seems more interested in cherry-picking facts to make an “a ha!” narrative than making an even slightly rigorous argument that holds up under scrutiny. The reviews I’ve read of The Bomber Mafia by actual historians have… not been kind.