Born Hunter
-
Content Count
17,838 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
31
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Articles
Gun Dealer's and Fieldsports Shop's
Reloading Room
Blogs
Calendar
Store
Classifieds
Everything posted by Born Hunter
-
It looks like they’ve given up on Kyiv and therefore given up on taking the whole of Ukraine. They now seem to be focussing on the south and east. Giving themselves a land bridge from Russia to Crimea. They should be able to achieve that. Almost have. Beyond achieving that, things seem too unpredictable to say. The next stages will likely involve counterinsurgency within this new Russian controlled territory. The Russians tend to be successful at that. And perhaps also a counter offensive to retake these regions by Ukrainian forces.
-
All I’m doing is commenting on what they are actually doing in a real test of their actual capability. Using contemporary Western examples as comparison. The importance of the conclusions of that are far from ‘bollocks’. Russias real power has consequences. Nuclear weapons don’t just remove those. Nuclear weapons don’t simply end state competition or even guarantee an end to conventional war between nuclear powers. The fact that Russia have lost a major surface combatant has consequences to everyone. The fact that Russia have failed to occupy a weaker state that is literally next door an
-
I also wonder who you might be…
-
I still haven’t the faintest f***ing clue what your point is. But you crack on. We’ll just continue to chat ‘bollocks’ amongst ourselves.
-
That’s only marginally less vague. Russia retain a believed to be credible nuclear arsenal and so unless everyone understood the escalatory terms of a conventional war, there simply will not be one between Russia and nato that doesn’t end in MAD. It’s that simple. If there was then I don’t know what part of their performance in Ukraine makes you think they would be a match for nato. Not that anyone is discussing it… How the soviets performed nearly eighty years ago has little meaning today. It’s not even a good analogy, WW2 proved their real capability just as Ukraine is proving Russias.
-
Let’s not go down rabbit holes until we’ve settled your first statement. You said we were talking bollocks and it was all theories. Their performance isn’t theory. So what we’re the bollocks theories?
-
There have been many essays and commentary already on what are the implications of Ukraine for policy towards China already. It’s a huge and trending topic.
-
And the UK has supported Ukraine. Both actions are adversarial to the other but not direct attacks on the other. Russia hasn’t attacked us anymore than we have them. There’s a reason for that, and it’s not that Russia doesn’t fear us or NATO like you implied. There have been no serious claims we should invade Russia ffs. And claims they are shit aren’t theories, they’re direct observations and comparisons to similar Western examples. The narrative until Ukraine was that Russia was a superpower in land warfare. The professional and layman’s consensus was that they were far more cap
-
So not NATO. Just like NATO et al hasn’t and won’t attack Russia… Have you heard of ‘below the threshold’? Both sides are engaging in this, neither have actually shown they don’t fear the other by crossing the threshold. ‘Theoretical’ is your word. Something you still can’t give an actual example of… We’re discussing all sorts and the implications of such. It’s all very real.
-
They haven’t faced it anymore than we have. They haven’t touched NATO! And NATO hasn’t touched Russia! For the last time, what theories specifically are all bollocks? You’ve come on here and outburst that we’re talking bollocks because we won’t actually do anything. Right’o fine whatever, I mean I can’t really do anything with that level of vagueness.
-
But you implied Russia didn’t fear NATO. Despite clear evidence to the contrary. I never said NATO didn’t fear russia… Why come on and say we’re talking bollocks then? And still not be able to give an actual example of the bollocks. Just seems a bit emotional to me.
-
He hasn’t touched NATO and in fact invaded Ukraine to stop them joining. So yeah, he’s clearly ‘really brave’ when it comes to taking on NATO. What strategic talk specifically is bollocks? You’re clearly upset that we think Russia is underperforming but aren’t being specific what is bollocks.
-
I’m honoured they think the UK has decent anti ship missiles to send to Ukraine! What we do have is technical and tactical SME excellence and that has probably been utilised. Our military and defence industry experts will be world leaders in how to successfully carry out that sort of attack.
-
What’s all bollocks? No one’s saying we are going to attack Russia.
-
Sea state 3 that day and using outdated systems that probably struggle with clutter from waves. Seems a likely key factor. That’s assuming the crew were actually well trained and disciplined… Not to mention radar weaknesses (other than clutter), electronic countermeasures, or tactics.
-
A Russian ex MP’s comment I believe. Have they got a secret war military force they’re keeping secret… because their special military operation forces aren’t up to it!
-
Apparently Russia carried out a missile strike on factories in Kyiv that manufacture the Neptune missiles. The Neptune missiles that didn’t sink the Moskva, because it was an accident that caused it to sink…
-
Fucks sake kanny! You’re sin binned until you learn to fact check! This is serious business.
-
Unlikely to be declared if there was. The anti ship missiles it was armed with could be fitted with either nuclear or conventional warheads.
-
Warspite still makes me tingle.
-
From a weapons product development point of view, it’s a perfect field test opportunity. If successful it’s a great story for sales and marketing. Despite left wing scoffs to the contrary, the UK is visibly front and centre on the world stage with supporting Ukraine. Standing by our obligations of the Budapest memorandum and standing by a nation we had deals with bolsters soft power. It makes other nations looking to align with a global power value the UK. If they enter a trade deal with us they are confident we will provide some muscle if things get a bit hot for them. If they are lookin
-
I’ve read into this when it was announced. Unfortunately the UKs anti ship missile options are a bit lacking. For small small enemy ships (fast attack up to corvette) we have a number of either operational or well developed options, sea venom/sea spear/martlet. But in the heavyweight category we only have the obsolete harpoon, with any home grown replacement 10 years away from being operational! It’s a bit of a sore point. Harpoon seems to be on par with Neptune. For land attack the RAF have the storm shadow, and in good numbers, but that is not designed to target ships. Now that’s not to
-
They’re not Ukrainian are they!? Are the bio labs secure!?
-
I could do some damage with one.
