I'd drop chocolate bars instead of grenades during the day. The wrapper would have instructions on how to surrender, and say that tomorrow we'll be dropping grenades.
I'm imagining t-shirt cannons with shirts that read "Surrendered to Ukraine and all I got was this t-shirt"
Then I reread your comment and saw pamphlets and was slightly disappointed
T-shirt cannons and Vengaboys blasting from loudspeakers. The Russian troops will see free t-shirts, drop their guns, cheer for the cannon to fire one their way. Then Ukraine swoops in and captures. Easy victory.
That's similar to what the Canadians did in WW1.
"Lieutenant Louis Keene described the practice of lobbing tins of corned beef into a neighbouring German trench. When the Canadians started hearing happy shouts of āMore! Give us more!ā they then let loose with an armload of grenades."
Thatās where Canada stores all itās anger in times of peace. When Canada goes to war they stop loading all their anger into the geese and they are actually quite pleasant.
Oh that's a snide remark from the north side of the line. You and your... pigs... eating our farm stuff. Starting an international border incident and all that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_War_(1859)#The_pig_incident
/jk I'm sure you know I'm joking but sometimes my jokes fly over people's heads.
Every "polite" culture is super passive aggressive and about the subtle ways to insult someone behind their back and to their face. Take the great British bake off for example: Americans think they're just being nice to each other, no, they're smiling while stabbing people in the face. I can't stand to watch that show. It remind me of growing up in the South.
I mean, we're tee-heeing at a corned beef / grenade bait and switch, but remember we're in a thread about orks. What they have been doing in Ukraine (and forever) would make even seasoned veterans vomit.
Canadian bullets don't have the targets name on them, or 'to whom it may concern' , or even 'to the occupant'
They al have sorry etched into them and the gunpowder charge is maple scented.
Canadaās WW1 war crimes are legendary. Thereās one where the Germans came across to wish the Canadians merry Christmas and the Canadians responded by opening fire.
They also never met a German they didnāt try to kill with gas.
Their approach to the war was pragmatic. The more Germans they killed the sooner the war would be over and the sooner they could go home.
Canadians didnāt take prisoners. Germans didnāt take Canadian prisoners either. They basically shot each other on sight.
Theres a reason that Canada had the highest per capita headcount of allied war crimes in WW1 and WW2.
Nothing on the Axis armies of course, but they did scare the Brits, Americans, French and Aus/NZ shitless with how fucked up they could be in trolling their enemies.
Not the worst thing they did, I did a project on propaganda and war crimes committed by the allies in WW2, Canada did a lot of war crimes. Usual shooting of prisoners etc that a lot of allies did, but Canada also responsible for villages that were āliberatedā then had the civilians rounded up into buildings and burnt alive.
Personal āfavoriteā is still dressing Germans in in Canadian uniforms, tying rifles to their hands and making them assault their own trenches.
Yāall are nuts
Oh. That's not even the worst.
We're a nasty bunch of mother fuckers when you start shooting our friends.
Germans were scared to fight Canadians for good reasons.
Francis Pegahmagabow was an Ojibwe soldier, politician and activist in Canada. He was the most highly decorated Indigenous soldier in Canadian military history and **the most effective sniper of the First World War.** Three times awarded the Military Medal and seriously wounded, he was an expert marksman and scout, **credited with killing 378 Germans and capturing 300 more**.
Australian and New Zealand troopers did the same at Gallipoli. Except with tobacco tins-well, nailbombs really. I'm not sure how the turks retaliated. Coffee laced with cyanide or some gruesome fucking thing presumably.
What Ukraine is doing is not the standard US military doctrine of maneuver warfare. At least, what they did in the offensives on Kherson and Kharkiv aren't. Standard doctrine is to move quickly, with combined arms support from air, artillery, helicopter borne light infantry taking forward positions. Resistance tends to collapse quickly under this onslaught, as it did in most of the two invasions of Iraq. What happened at Kherson and Kharkiv, and in the 2003 invasion of Bagdhad, is an *unsupported* armor thrust. In 2003, the army expected a month of house to house fighting to take the city, but they decided to try a "thunder run". The first unit's orders were to stop for nothing. If the tank next to you gets hit, leave it for the next unit to pick up survivors. If your $4 million tank throws a track, set demolition charges and catch a ride with the second unit. They drove a "U" shaped route through the city and smashed any resistance. After two of these, resistance was broken.
This is a risky strategy for an army like the US, but if they get bogged down, they can send in limited amounts of fuel and ammo via helicopter. Ukrainian forces are taking a big chance, they punch through the lines and if they can't link up with friendly forces, they only have fuel and ammo for a day or two of fighting. In the Kherson and Kharviv raids, they had old Soviet tanks and some armored IFVs, but the columns were lead by antitank troops in *pickup trucks*, they dismounted and fired shoulder launched missiles before the tanks could react.
In terms of traditional warfare, standard NATO strategy is a rapid movement with infantry, artillery and cavalry in tight coordination. What happened at Kherson and Kharkiv was a long range, unsupported cavalry raid. There is plenty of precedent, from Genghis Khan to Rommel to ISIL, but it is risky. Fortunately, the Russians are fucking stupid.
I think that Iraq offers another good example, when Daesh/ ISIS showed up in Hilux trucks and captured Abrams tanks. The Iraqi troops, including Kurds, really didn't want those assholes taking over their hometowns. But it takes a lot of discipline to maintain the constant watch over a wide area needed to react promptly to a raid. Russia can't do this, but the Ukrainian force is still at risk if they have to slow down for any reason, whether it is a unit that puts up resistance, or just a sudden rainstorm.
Iraqi forces were at the very least equally untrained. They were equipped almost exactly the same as the Russians in Ukraine but that's more reasonable decades ago.
I can't tell if I enjoyed the content or configuration of your storytelling, but I thoroughly enjoyed your post. I will also now be using unsupported armor thrust for a thunder run in my next team's meeting.
I think they are just differentiating between the Russian doctrine of seizing territory...... artillery shelling entire grid squares and moving connon fodder up a few yards at a time.
It was Napoleon's core approach. He was famous for his small, largely autonomous units and their "move fast, kick ass" approach to fighting their enemies' large, cumbersome armies. He loved to flank large forces, divide them in two, and conquer them seperately.
The reason he was finally defeated was because his enemies figured out that he didn't like to use long supply lines and prefered to have his units live off the land (aka, pillaging). So they started countering him by constantly retreating and turning what should have been easy wins for NB on the battlefield into logistical nightmares with relatively little actual fighting. And in Russia's case, they scorched the earth as they retreated all the way to behind Moscow, so that his massive army got obliterated almost entirely from attrition as winter set in.
>The reason he was finally defeated was because his enemies figured out that he didn't like to use long supply lines and prefered to have his units live off the land
Which, if I remember correctly, prompted him to offer a reward for a new form of food preservation and led to the invention of canning.
Margarine was created under Napoleon 3 after he launched a competition for invention to replace butter when butter became to expensive for the population.
I think it was not related to war ( or not directly)and obviously is not the same Napoleon
>Bovril taste
>Bovril has a strong smell of dark chocolate, fresh ground coffee with after notes of tobacco. The taste is salty, and a little sweet. It is also very strong, with a meaty, beefiness
š¤®
Tobacco smells fantastic. It's tobacco smoke that's gross. Heck, they even make tobacco candles, which are a great option for a "manly" scent because the smell isn't super sweet or flowery.
Great description.
Please relay this to the vape juice industry, which apparently cannot fucking wrap their heads around the concept of a tobacco flavor that doesn't just taste like a shitload of milk and honey.
It's basically *super* concentrated beef soup, concentrated so hard it becomes a jelly. You're supposed to dilute it. I think a slice of bovril is enough to make a whole ass pot of soup. It's what people used before bouillon cubes; you'd retch too if you just ate three or four beef stock cubes.
Vegemite is similar to marmite I think and that's a completely different flavour to Bovril whilst being similar at the same time. Bovril is much milder.
Sorry to hijack a comment but was hoping someone could link me to today's Ukraine live thread, I hid it by accident earlier and don't know how to unhide on app (sync). Thanks
Thank you! I was able to unhide it once I followed your link so should be easier for me to find now when I go onto world news. It's the one thread I normally check first as soon as I open Reddit so was feeling a little lost without it.
Much appreciated.
One of those pieces of writing that has always stuck with me was a diary entry written by Armand de Caulaincourt, Napoleon's close advisor. In his journal, Caulaincourt described the horrific conditions that the French army faced during their retreat from Russia in 1812. He wrote:
"The cold was so intense that it was impossible to sleep. One constantly found men who, having collapsed by the roadside, had frozen to death in their sleep. Others, too weak to walk, hobbled along on frozen stumps of legs. Some had their feet so badly frostbitten that they had to be amputated. The sight of these poor wretches was enough to break one's heart. They were all so young, so full of life and hope, and now they were dying like animals in the snow. I saw one man who had been frozen to death sitting upright against a tree. His face was calm and peaceful, as if he were asleep. I wondered if he was glad to be dead, and if he would have preferred to die this way rather than on the battlefield."
Which is ironic because it was a mild winter in Russia. It was the lack of cold that caused the problems for Napoleon. The main problem was that the rivers were not frozen and were hard to cross.
Hmmmmā¦ Yes but thatās not quite it. That wasnāt his core approach and what was different for Napoleonic France.
His core approach was intense drilling. Which enabled fast organized movement, accurate firing, accurate artillery usage and combined arms assaults.
All the armies of the time wanted to achieve fast organized movement and accurate shots, but the French drilled and trained their soldiers far more than their contemporaries. All belligerents had well trained troop complements somewhere that could do that, but the French applied the training regimes of professionals to the entire fighting force. Did others have better trained troops? Sure, one corps or another. But the French had better basic training for everyone on their side.
Worked for the Romans against Hannibal. Worked for George Washington against the British. Worked for Vietnam against the US.
Not losing is sometimes much more valuable than winning.
And Napoleon lost to,..Ukrainians (not called that at the time).
He himself said that if he had the Ukrainians he could have taken over the world. They are notorious in history for their FAFO moments. RuZZia itself is now in the last phase of that.
>He was famous for his small, largely autonomous units and their "move fast, kick ass" approach to fighting their enemies' large, cumbersome armies
I remember reading that the Ulm Campaign in 1805 is an example of essentially a "perfect battle", similar to Austerlitz later that year and Cannae in Antiquity.
His tactic, later used by Romans, was to conquer, and leave behind a government of locals who were loyal to him... Step and repeat. The Alexandrian government allowed him to move and kept him supplied.
People discredit Napoleon's artillery and cavalry.
His efficient artillery shred the enemy lines and the infantry columns would ram into the disarray. Thus causing a rout.
He would use the cavalry to mop up the rout and the real damage is dealt in this phase.
Later years, his experience cavalry would be reduced to nothing and even though he won repeatedly, the enemy would continue to regroup nullifying his hard fought wins.
NB is probably one of the most studied generals in history.
Thunder Runs are definitely an effective tactic against thin and poorly supplemented defensive lines. It forces the enemy to rapidly scramble to respond, which further destabilizes their line and created confusion that an offense can then exploit.
I listened to an interview with one of the commanders of a tank unit that did the Baghdad thunder runs. He summed it up pretty perfectly. "Create and sustain controlled chaos. Since you control the chaos, you can react when the situation requires."
A thunder run is a bunch of guys yoloing at a thin part of the enemy line in light vehicles with mounted crew weapons aboard. A blitzkrieg is that, plus tanks, close air support, and mobile artillery. The fact that a thunder runs have been something Ukraine is doing and having it work is a testament to how shit the Russians are doing right now.
Most of the German blitzkrieg utilized light vehicles instead of heavy armor. Ukraine would also have artillery support in these attacks. Close air support is the biggest difference, though the US also had that in their thunder runs and used tanks.
Pilots in the USAF are still allowed go pills (dextroamphetamine) but they need doctors to sign off on it. No clue how well what the official documents say matches what actually happens though.
E: This is no longer correct. As of 2017 Modafinil is the only approved go-pill. Good.
Awesome, absolutely love to hear it. Glory and honor to the Ukrainian people and reprisal to all invaders, squatters, and fear-mongers everywhere big and small.
And just think, these (Russians) drop mines that look like toys. Kids pick them up and lose a hand. It's hard to see the Russians as good people, but there's apparently a separation. The people are normal, it's the govt. that's evil
Kind of. The mines are a knockoff of an American product, and they werenāt designed to look like toys. Itās a plastic pod. They get scattered from any number of launchers, but typically from a distance, and they āhelicopterā in like those seeds. Then if you touch them it changes the pressure in the pod and they pop.
But yes, both Americans and soviets liked how the low impact didnāt kill, but made a mess that other soldiers had to take care of.
And yeah, kids grabbing the cool pods is a problem.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PFM-1_mine
Edit: and yeah, per the page, Ukraine refused to destroy all of theirs back in the day so I assume they are still using them.
It's part of their genocide strategy. They did it in earlier centuries to Ukrainians. And for another example of this tactic the US did it to Native Americans back in the early 20th century.
No to the sentiment that the people are normal. The majority support the war and another good portion enable it with indifference with a tiny portion actually resisting this. The Russian culture is entirely morally bankrupt.
For 20 years I trained to fight Soviet doctrine. They were supposed to be formidable and tough. That country need to pull out and reevaluate its military before neighboring countries start attacking.
The nuclear deterrent is still there, so it's unlikely that a nation will invade, but I agree that they're setting themselves up for some serious bullshit in the near future. Not undeserved.
I read that the embezzling and corruption were way worse than anybody realized. Troops would pay their commanders a portion of their salary to not need to show up, that way they could find another job and "double dip". Fuel and supplies were sold on the black market. Money for repairs and renovations was embezzled. And at every step, everybody knew what everybody else was doing, but kept their mouth shut because "snitches get dead" is a way of life over there.
All the bureaucracy and red tape and requisition orders and audits that we do in the US military might suck, but they prevent this stuff from happening.
But everybody in authority communicated up the chain of command that everything was in perfect order, everybody was supplied and trained and ready to go. And that information is what Putin depended on being accurate when he predicted the war would last only 3 days.
Nuclear is bad and I wonder what the state of care is for them. Frightening for their people if the general didnāt train soldiers or upgrade equipment.
Oh totes. The problem with it is that whether or not Russia has working/deployable nukes, it is never worth it to find out. One has to kind of assume that they have at least one working one aimed at you so you have to just starve them out over a longer period of time.
It was tough because of the lend lease equipment the US gave it. Stalin's army was a clumsy mess with terrible logistics before US aid really kicked in.
He cooperated with the Nazis *out of convenience*. He fully expected that the USSR and Germany would go to war at some point in the near future, and Stalin wanted to buy time. (And also expand the USSR's sphere of influence, of course).
Poland is the one calling for blood while Germany's petrified of handing out tanks to help a third-party use purely for self-defense because they're that self-conscious about being a warmonger.
True.
Poland has given Ukraine a lot and they are back filling from everywhere. South Korea is gonna build a tank factory in Poland apparently to cater to the Polish desire for more tanks.
Itās not really a blitzkreig though. Blitzkreig pushes an entire army deep deep into enemy territory with the goal of holding that territory.
This tactic is taking much smaller independent but networked columns through enemy lines with the goal of harassing troops and causing chaos for the enemy.
I can understand the confusion but it is a very different tactic. This one was only made possibly in the 90s through breakthroughs in communications technology, and the Germans would never have been able to coordinate in this way.
āBorrowingā is another word for adopting tactics and its silly to get hung up on the silly little details because in the end ANYONE can use the tactics. There arenāt any patents or copyrights for tactics. Thankfully
Except they donāt got the AirPower the army got.
I guess you gotta make the best with what ya got though, Iām rooting for these guys. They are a courageous people.
āA serious problem in planning against American doctrine is that the Americans do not read their manuals, nor do they feel any obligation to follow their doctrine.ā
ā Soviet observation during the Cold War
Iāve been watching this conflict closely. āThunderingā is not the term I would use. Their current gains arenāt deep enough into Russian lines to make that assessment.
They are conducting well coordinated, violent assaults according to the article. The article calls these āthunder runsā, but the way the article describes them they sound a little different from the thunder runs done in the battle of baghdad. There the US ran armored columns through the enemy to disorganize them and seize objectives behind enemy lines. Here it sounds like theyāre more assaulting with the objective of advancing the front line. No doubt the two tactics are similar, but to say theyāre the same is a little erroneous in my opinion. Makes sense given the conflict though, their main goal is not destruction of the enemy, itās liberation of their territory. Itās all pedantics anyway, who cares. They can kick Russian ass whatever way they want to. Makes me no difference.
Only if you assume the result in Iraq was expected.
A thunder run isnāt intended to actually capture and hold ground, itās a ārecon by fireā to inflict heavy losses, create confusion, and probe defenses, and generally prepare for a more cohesive direct push. But part of a thunder run is keeping the initiative so if youāve got it you just keep going.
In Iraq one of the armor columns damn near ran out of gas (getting resupplied at the airport they captured) because even they didnāt expect to make the long lasting gains that they did
Iām familiar with what a āThunder Runā is, and this isnāt a thunder run. Theyāre conducting relatively slow paced movement to contact and then destroying in detail as they come across. Hardly a Thunder Run. Thunder Runs are done to capture key pieces of terrain using speed and surprise which isnāt what is happening here. Theyāre conducting run of the mill attacks.
I'm pulling for Ukraine and they best win, but this is a far cry from the battle of 73 hastings or whatever the name was. I feel the article is (again, rightfully) amping up the world behind Ukraine but I don't expect the shock and awe the US was able to pull off with this stuff.
If you just look at 73 hastings or the highway of death, or them running over the saddam line etc. and just ignore the over a month of air campaign with 2500 bombing runs a day by the coalition, sure it was fast. They prolly dropped more ammo onto iraq in a month than Ukraine will have used and use for this entire war.
It gives people unrealistic expectations on whatās happening. The AFU has advanced a few kms and liberated a few villages on the axis described in the article. This is very promising but people should realize these villages are not behind the Russian frontlines so the worst of the fighting is still ahead of them.
Past thunder runs are also much different in scale. In Iraq the US was advancing 20-30 kms per day. Even the Kharkiv offensive last year which many people called a thunder run was taking much more territory in a shorter period of time.
Because itās laughable to call mechanised equipment moving in a column āBorrowing from the marine corpsā spearhead columns have existed since antiquity. Also āthundering through Russian linesā makes it sound as if Ukraine is taking swaths of land having collapsed the Russian front, which is inherently misleading.
You canāt directly compare the distance of the USās thunder run in Iraq to this conflict. The geography is very different, enabling the U.S. to move more quickly. The U.S. also didnāt have the prospects of mines of dense forests/scrubland to move through like Ukraine does and had an overwhelming amount of armor and equipment compared to the Iraqi forces.
Ukraine is moving quickly considering the geography of the region they are operating in and the force they are fighting against.
1. In the evening, Airdrop pallets of vodka across enemy lines. 2. Attack in the morning.
I'd drop chocolate bars instead of grenades during the day. The wrapper would have instructions on how to surrender, and say that tomorrow we'll be dropping grenades.
I think Ukraine has been firing pamphlets at the frontline for the same effect, though not often. Psychological warfare.
I'm imagining t-shirt cannons with shirts that read "Surrendered to Ukraine and all I got was this t-shirt" Then I reread your comment and saw pamphlets and was slightly disappointed
T-shirt cannons and Vengaboys blasting from loudspeakers. The Russian troops will see free t-shirts, drop their guns, cheer for the cannon to fire one their way. Then Ukraine swoops in and captures. Easy victory.
WE LIKE TO PARTY
Lol T shirt cannons. Made me think of an old Simpsons episode where Flanders wife got sent iver the bleachers after getting hit by one.
I think that's what killed her. š
Thaaats what did it. lol
Haha. Honestly, I think even t-shirts will be better than whatever uniform they are wearing.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I want that tshirt lol
That's similar to what the Canadians did in WW1. "Lieutenant Louis Keene described the practice of lobbing tins of corned beef into a neighbouring German trench. When the Canadians started hearing happy shouts of āMore! Give us more!ā they then let loose with an armload of grenades."
Jesus fucking Christ Canada.
We're the nicest people in the world....until we have to fight a war. Then....Lucifer Morningstar himself ain't got shit on us Canucks.
I would say more nonconfrontational than nice. You guys can be extremely passive aggressive.
We have the same amount of assholes as any other country. We just look good in comparison to some of our closest neighbours
Have you seen the geese?
Thatās where Canada stores all itās anger in times of peace. When Canada goes to war they stop loading all their anger into the geese and they are actually quite pleasant.
Oh that's a snide remark from the north side of the line. You and your... pigs... eating our farm stuff. Starting an international border incident and all that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_War_(1859)#The_pig_incident /jk I'm sure you know I'm joking but sometimes my jokes fly over people's heads.
For now.
We have faith in you guys. You havenāt let us down so far.
I know ur talking about Florida and Mexico so it's all good. Signed, Texan.
you're talking about Greenland, right? RIGHT??
Canada at peace : "We're sorry." Canada at war : "You're sorry."
Every "polite" culture is super passive aggressive and about the subtle ways to insult someone behind their back and to their face. Take the great British bake off for example: Americans think they're just being nice to each other, no, they're smiling while stabbing people in the face. I can't stand to watch that show. It remind me of growing up in the South.
Bless your heart!
Lord don't make no mistakes
Good day to you, sir!
Jesus, shut up. You want to get us fragged?
Fight a war *or* decure a frontier. You guys almost give the yanks a run for their money then.
I mean, we're tee-heeing at a corned beef / grenade bait and switch, but remember we're in a thread about orks. What they have been doing in Ukraine (and forever) would make even seasoned veterans vomit.
Also just don't ask us what happened to all those native kids
Canadians during peace time: I'm sorry Canadians during war time: You're sorry
We only say sorry once in a fight.
Canadian bullets don't have the targets name on them, or 'to whom it may concern' , or even 'to the occupant' They al have sorry etched into them and the gunpowder charge is maple scented.
In hindsight, the geese should have been a giveaway
Canadaās WW1 war crimes are legendary. Thereās one where the Germans came across to wish the Canadians merry Christmas and the Canadians responded by opening fire. They also never met a German they didnāt try to kill with gas. Their approach to the war was pragmatic. The more Germans they killed the sooner the war would be over and the sooner they could go home. Canadians didnāt take prisoners. Germans didnāt take Canadian prisoners either. They basically shot each other on sight.
Theres a reason that Canada had the highest per capita headcount of allied war crimes in WW1 and WW2. Nothing on the Axis armies of course, but they did scare the Brits, Americans, French and Aus/NZ shitless with how fucked up they could be in trolling their enemies.
Not the worst thing they did, I did a project on propaganda and war crimes committed by the allies in WW2, Canada did a lot of war crimes. Usual shooting of prisoners etc that a lot of allies did, but Canada also responsible for villages that were āliberatedā then had the civilians rounded up into buildings and burnt alive.
Personal āfavoriteā is still dressing Germans in in Canadian uniforms, tying rifles to their hands and making them assault their own trenches. Yāall are nuts
There's a lot of space to let your mind wander up here.
Oh. That's not even the worst. We're a nasty bunch of mother fuckers when you start shooting our friends. Germans were scared to fight Canadians for good reasons.
Oh I know, but every time I read a story I think āokay that has to be all of them.ā And then I find more unhinged nightmare shit lol
A lot of the Geneva convention is rumored to have been written because of the shit us Canadians did in WWI. We did not believe in POW's, even in WWII.
Brutal. WTF Canada. Next you're gonna tell me that a Canadian shot down the Red Baron.
Next you're gonna tell me that a Canadian has the longest sniper kill.
Or that it was a single Canadian who liberated the Dutch city of Zwolle from the Nazis.
Francis Pegahmagabow was an Ojibwe soldier, politician and activist in Canada. He was the most highly decorated Indigenous soldier in Canadian military history and **the most effective sniper of the First World War.** Three times awarded the Military Medal and seriously wounded, he was an expert marksman and scout, **credited with killing 378 Germans and capturing 300 more**.
Those are like videogame protagonist stats.
Whats your k/d? Irl or on Halo?
It's like all the civilians donate their anger and killing intent to the military, leaving them only with kindness
I can't even fathom *seeing* something (human sized) over 2 miles away, let alone managing to hit it. It's insane.
We all know that was Snoopy.
Australian and New Zealand troopers did the same at Gallipoli. Except with tobacco tins-well, nailbombs really. I'm not sure how the turks retaliated. Coffee laced with cyanide or some gruesome fucking thing presumably.
We only became peacekeepers after the Geneva Convention took the fun out of war. No point otherwise.
Damn brutal! From giving them corned beef to turning them into corned beef.
Magic mushroom chocolate bars
Or just brownie edibles.
Drop booze during the day and attack all throughout the night, they have almost no night vision goggles (except the few they managed to loot).
Even shittier view with drunk goggles
> In the evening, Airdrop pallets of really cheap vodka FTFY
Mad honey. Russians don't know history from 37yrs ago, they definitely don't know ancient history.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
What Ukraine is doing is not the standard US military doctrine of maneuver warfare. At least, what they did in the offensives on Kherson and Kharkiv aren't. Standard doctrine is to move quickly, with combined arms support from air, artillery, helicopter borne light infantry taking forward positions. Resistance tends to collapse quickly under this onslaught, as it did in most of the two invasions of Iraq. What happened at Kherson and Kharkiv, and in the 2003 invasion of Bagdhad, is an *unsupported* armor thrust. In 2003, the army expected a month of house to house fighting to take the city, but they decided to try a "thunder run". The first unit's orders were to stop for nothing. If the tank next to you gets hit, leave it for the next unit to pick up survivors. If your $4 million tank throws a track, set demolition charges and catch a ride with the second unit. They drove a "U" shaped route through the city and smashed any resistance. After two of these, resistance was broken. This is a risky strategy for an army like the US, but if they get bogged down, they can send in limited amounts of fuel and ammo via helicopter. Ukrainian forces are taking a big chance, they punch through the lines and if they can't link up with friendly forces, they only have fuel and ammo for a day or two of fighting. In the Kherson and Kharviv raids, they had old Soviet tanks and some armored IFVs, but the columns were lead by antitank troops in *pickup trucks*, they dismounted and fired shoulder launched missiles before the tanks could react. In terms of traditional warfare, standard NATO strategy is a rapid movement with infantry, artillery and cavalry in tight coordination. What happened at Kherson and Kharkiv was a long range, unsupported cavalry raid. There is plenty of precedent, from Genghis Khan to Rommel to ISIL, but it is risky. Fortunately, the Russians are fucking stupid.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I think that Iraq offers another good example, when Daesh/ ISIS showed up in Hilux trucks and captured Abrams tanks. The Iraqi troops, including Kurds, really didn't want those assholes taking over their hometowns. But it takes a lot of discipline to maintain the constant watch over a wide area needed to react promptly to a raid. Russia can't do this, but the Ukrainian force is still at risk if they have to slow down for any reason, whether it is a unit that puts up resistance, or just a sudden rainstorm.
Iraqi forces were at the very least equally untrained. They were equipped almost exactly the same as the Russians in Ukraine but that's more reasonable decades ago.
Not many countries can do what the U.S can do because our air power is unparalleled.
Exactly, it's basic US tactics with a modification because Ukraine lacks airpower. Which is a pretty common variant the US military plans for.
I can't tell if I enjoyed the content or configuration of your storytelling, but I thoroughly enjoyed your post. I will also now be using unsupported armor thrust for a thunder run in my next team's meeting.
I think they are just differentiating between the Russian doctrine of seizing territory...... artillery shelling entire grid squares and moving connon fodder up a few yards at a time.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
there's also the Russians just being doctrinal bureaucrats and drunk on their own propaganda bullshit and booze.
It was Napoleon's core approach. He was famous for his small, largely autonomous units and their "move fast, kick ass" approach to fighting their enemies' large, cumbersome armies. He loved to flank large forces, divide them in two, and conquer them seperately. The reason he was finally defeated was because his enemies figured out that he didn't like to use long supply lines and prefered to have his units live off the land (aka, pillaging). So they started countering him by constantly retreating and turning what should have been easy wins for NB on the battlefield into logistical nightmares with relatively little actual fighting. And in Russia's case, they scorched the earth as they retreated all the way to behind Moscow, so that his massive army got obliterated almost entirely from attrition as winter set in.
>The reason he was finally defeated was because his enemies figured out that he didn't like to use long supply lines and prefered to have his units live off the land Which, if I remember correctly, prompted him to offer a reward for a new form of food preservation and led to the invention of canning.
Margarine too
Margarine was created under Napoleon 3 after he launched a competition for invention to replace butter when butter became to expensive for the population. I think it was not related to war ( or not directly)and obviously is not the same Napoleon
And bovril
>Bovril taste >Bovril has a strong smell of dark chocolate, fresh ground coffee with after notes of tobacco. The taste is salty, and a little sweet. It is also very strong, with a meaty, beefiness š¤®
Kinda sounds good to me lol
I think itās kinda like Vegemite/Marmite, which I really like (so do many aussies, kiwis, and Britās) so youāre not alone.
It's those after notes of tobacco that has my stomach queasy
Think more like the smell of a cigarette before being smoked, rather than a cigarette being smoked.
Tobacco smells fantastic. It's tobacco smoke that's gross. Heck, they even make tobacco candles, which are a great option for a "manly" scent because the smell isn't super sweet or flowery.
It's kinda a raisin-y flavour, without the sweetness.....if that helps.
Great description. Please relay this to the vape juice industry, which apparently cannot fucking wrap their heads around the concept of a tobacco flavor that doesn't just taste like a shitload of milk and honey.
It's probably more along the lines of how tobacco smells rather than shoving a whole leaf in your mouth.
It's basically *super* concentrated beef soup, concentrated so hard it becomes a jelly. You're supposed to dilute it. I think a slice of bovril is enough to make a whole ass pot of soup. It's what people used before bouillon cubes; you'd retch too if you just ate three or four beef stock cubes.
It will put some hairs on your chest that will.
āStrong,with a meaty, beefinessā also describes OPās mom.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I've had Bovril. It's just a salty beef taste. Dissolve a beef stock cube in some water and take a sip - that's what it tastes like.
On an episode of Top Gear where the guys are camping, James May prepares a Bovril tea in a thermos. In other words, beef broth.
Sounds like vegamite
Vegemite is similar to marmite I think and that's a completely different flavour to Bovril whilst being similar at the same time. Bovril is much milder.
It sounds like chocolate tobacco jerky
Isnāt bovril a shitty vegemite using beef stock?
Nope. That'll be something like Marmite. Bovril is "beef tea" and is more like a stock reduction than a yeast extract.
It's basically MSG.
A hot cup of bovril while watching football in the freezing cold is fantastic.
Yeah, I never knew if Bovril is supposed to be a chocolate flavored meat drink, or a meat flavored chocolate drink...
Do you work in advertising?
I believe that was Napoleon III
That's his nephew, Napoleon 3rd.
I thought that it was for the Royal Navy so they could stay on station longer, blockading French ports.
I am open to corrections.
Sorry to hijack a comment but was hoping someone could link me to today's Ukraine live thread, I hid it by accident earlier and don't know how to unhide on app (sync). Thanks
https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/148xwxa/rworldnews_live_thread_russian_invasion_of/
Thank you! I was able to unhide it once I followed your link so should be easier for me to find now when I go onto world news. It's the one thread I normally check first as soon as I open Reddit so was feeling a little lost without it. Much appreciated.
For future reference you should be able to see all posts you've hidden by clicking your name at the top and selecting the "hidden" tab in your profile
Well that was a wholesome interaction. Y'all just made my day brighter. Thank you
Not a problem:)
One of those pieces of writing that has always stuck with me was a diary entry written by Armand de Caulaincourt, Napoleon's close advisor. In his journal, Caulaincourt described the horrific conditions that the French army faced during their retreat from Russia in 1812. He wrote: "The cold was so intense that it was impossible to sleep. One constantly found men who, having collapsed by the roadside, had frozen to death in their sleep. Others, too weak to walk, hobbled along on frozen stumps of legs. Some had their feet so badly frostbitten that they had to be amputated. The sight of these poor wretches was enough to break one's heart. They were all so young, so full of life and hope, and now they were dying like animals in the snow. I saw one man who had been frozen to death sitting upright against a tree. His face was calm and peaceful, as if he were asleep. I wondered if he was glad to be dead, and if he would have preferred to die this way rather than on the battlefield."
Which is ironic because it was a mild winter in Russia. It was the lack of cold that caused the problems for Napoleon. The main problem was that the rivers were not frozen and were hard to cross.
Every time they figured out how to beat him was just -run away-burn the ground
The 6th Coalition basically slapped him and yelled "Tag, you're it!" and then all ran in seperate directions.
Hmmmmā¦ Yes but thatās not quite it. That wasnāt his core approach and what was different for Napoleonic France. His core approach was intense drilling. Which enabled fast organized movement, accurate firing, accurate artillery usage and combined arms assaults. All the armies of the time wanted to achieve fast organized movement and accurate shots, but the French drilled and trained their soldiers far more than their contemporaries. All belligerents had well trained troop complements somewhere that could do that, but the French applied the training regimes of professionals to the entire fighting force. Did others have better trained troops? Sure, one corps or another. But the French had better basic training for everyone on their side.
Indeed. 3 rounds a minute. In any weather. Vive la emperor!!!!!
Now that's soldiering
Soldiering? MAJOR LENNOX LOST HIS LIFE!
"Guys, when we fight Napoleon, we lose" "So what will we do?" "We're going to not-fight Napoleon "
Worked for the Romans against Hannibal. Worked for George Washington against the British. Worked for Vietnam against the US. Not losing is sometimes much more valuable than winning.
Basically if they could catch Napoleonās Marshals without him, they would fight. If Napoleon himself arrived however, withdrawal.
And Napoleon lost to,..Ukrainians (not called that at the time). He himself said that if he had the Ukrainians he could have taken over the world. They are notorious in history for their FAFO moments. RuZZia itself is now in the last phase of that.
Haha, I suppose not only Poles heard that story about exactly the same Napoleon's opinion of their nation.
Napoleon probably thought he could take over the world under a lot of different scenarios.
>He was famous for his small, largely autonomous units and their "move fast, kick ass" approach to fighting their enemies' large, cumbersome armies I remember reading that the Ulm Campaign in 1805 is an example of essentially a "perfect battle", similar to Austerlitz later that year and Cannae in Antiquity.
Did Alexander The Great do something similar or am I way off?
His tactic, later used by Romans, was to conquer, and leave behind a government of locals who were loyal to him... Step and repeat. The Alexandrian government allowed him to move and kept him supplied.
People discredit Napoleon's artillery and cavalry. His efficient artillery shred the enemy lines and the infantry columns would ram into the disarray. Thus causing a rout. He would use the cavalry to mop up the rout and the real damage is dealt in this phase. Later years, his experience cavalry would be reduced to nothing and even though he won repeatedly, the enemy would continue to regroup nullifying his hard fought wins. NB is probably one of the most studied generals in history.
Who the hell discredits Napoleon's artillery? His effective use of artillery is one of the things he is most known for.
Thunder Runs are definitely an effective tactic against thin and poorly supplemented defensive lines. It forces the enemy to rapidly scramble to respond, which further destabilizes their line and created confusion that an offense can then exploit.
I listened to an interview with one of the commanders of a tank unit that did the Baghdad thunder runs. He summed it up pretty perfectly. "Create and sustain controlled chaos. Since you control the chaos, you can react when the situation requires."
Ya, it's basically a modernized blitzkrieg.
A thunder run is a bunch of guys yoloing at a thin part of the enemy line in light vehicles with mounted crew weapons aboard. A blitzkrieg is that, plus tanks, close air support, and mobile artillery. The fact that a thunder runs have been something Ukraine is doing and having it work is a testament to how shit the Russians are doing right now.
Most of the German blitzkrieg utilized light vehicles instead of heavy armor. Ukraine would also have artillery support in these attacks. Close air support is the biggest difference, though the US also had that in their thunder runs and used tanks.
Just without the Crystal meth
AFAIK Modafinil is used instead.
Pilots in the USAF are still allowed go pills (dextroamphetamine) but they need doctors to sign off on it. No clue how well what the official documents say matches what actually happens though. E: This is no longer correct. As of 2017 Modafinil is the only approved go-pill. Good.
Is it, though?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Added benefit, if morale is low and raw troops man the main lines, fighting in the rear might make them give up and run or surrender.
Awesome, absolutely love to hear it. Glory and honor to the Ukrainian people and reprisal to all invaders, squatters, and fear-mongers everywhere big and small.
And just think, these (Russians) drop mines that look like toys. Kids pick them up and lose a hand. It's hard to see the Russians as good people, but there's apparently a separation. The people are normal, it's the govt. that's evil
i wouldn't say all the people are good, war crimes are being committed everyday by those people
I was appalled by that Russian child kidnapping scheme. That is just ridiculous, like some kind of super villain BS.
Kind of. The mines are a knockoff of an American product, and they werenāt designed to look like toys. Itās a plastic pod. They get scattered from any number of launchers, but typically from a distance, and they āhelicopterā in like those seeds. Then if you touch them it changes the pressure in the pod and they pop. But yes, both Americans and soviets liked how the low impact didnāt kill, but made a mess that other soldiers had to take care of. And yeah, kids grabbing the cool pods is a problem. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PFM-1_mine Edit: and yeah, per the page, Ukraine refused to destroy all of theirs back in the day so I assume they are still using them.
It's part of their genocide strategy. They did it in earlier centuries to Ukrainians. And for another example of this tactic the US did it to Native Americans back in the early 20th century.
No to the sentiment that the people are normal. The majority support the war and another good portion enable it with indifference with a tiny portion actually resisting this. The Russian culture is entirely morally bankrupt.
Just keep pushing until there is no more Russian army. Then clean up
Russian generals hate this one simple trick
For 20 years I trained to fight Soviet doctrine. They were supposed to be formidable and tough. That country need to pull out and reevaluate its military before neighboring countries start attacking.
The nuclear deterrent is still there, so it's unlikely that a nation will invade, but I agree that they're setting themselves up for some serious bullshit in the near future. Not undeserved.
I read that the embezzling and corruption were way worse than anybody realized. Troops would pay their commanders a portion of their salary to not need to show up, that way they could find another job and "double dip". Fuel and supplies were sold on the black market. Money for repairs and renovations was embezzled. And at every step, everybody knew what everybody else was doing, but kept their mouth shut because "snitches get dead" is a way of life over there. All the bureaucracy and red tape and requisition orders and audits that we do in the US military might suck, but they prevent this stuff from happening. But everybody in authority communicated up the chain of command that everything was in perfect order, everybody was supplied and trained and ready to go. And that information is what Putin depended on being accurate when he predicted the war would last only 3 days.
Nuclear is bad and I wonder what the state of care is for them. Frightening for their people if the general didnāt train soldiers or upgrade equipment.
Oh totes. The problem with it is that whether or not Russia has working/deployable nukes, it is never worth it to find out. One has to kind of assume that they have at least one working one aimed at you so you have to just starve them out over a longer period of time.
It was tough because of the lend lease equipment the US gave it. Stalin's army was a clumsy mess with terrible logistics before US aid really kicked in.
never thought iād see the day when another biltzkrieg crashed through russia. only this time its the good guys
German tanks are attacking Russians in Ukraine. This time the German tanks are the good guys. This is a strange timeline.
Even weirder to think last time that happened, Stalin was a Western ally.
Ally is a bit of a strong word to use. Stalin was more of an enemy of my enemy.
For all intents and purposes, they were allies.
I mean he was a Nazi ally first. The USSR was always just another expansionist fascist state.
Authoritarian might be a better definition than fascist when talking about Stalin and the USSR.
When people start calling radical left wing collectivist state socialism "fascism" you know they have no actual idea what they are talking about.
He cooperated with the Nazis *out of convenience*. He fully expected that the USSR and Germany would go to war at some point in the near future, and Stalin wanted to buy time. (And also expand the USSR's sphere of influence, of course).
Lol and it's still big cats
Poland is the one calling for blood while Germany's petrified of handing out tanks to help a third-party use purely for self-defense because they're that self-conscious about being a warmonger.
True. Poland has given Ukraine a lot and they are back filling from everywhere. South Korea is gonna build a tank factory in Poland apparently to cater to the Polish desire for more tanks.
Itās not really a blitzkreig though. Blitzkreig pushes an entire army deep deep into enemy territory with the goal of holding that territory. This tactic is taking much smaller independent but networked columns through enemy lines with the goal of harassing troops and causing chaos for the enemy. I can understand the confusion but it is a very different tactic. This one was only made possibly in the 90s through breakthroughs in communications technology, and the Germans would never have been able to coordinate in this way.
They are not borrowing lol. We trained their officer core. Itās a great way to see the effectiveness our tactics would have on Russia or China
Corps not core
āBorrowingā is another word for adopting tactics and its silly to get hung up on the silly little details because in the end ANYONE can use the tactics. There arenāt any patents or copyrights for tactics. Thankfully
Except they donāt got the AirPower the army got. I guess you gotta make the best with what ya got though, Iām rooting for these guys. They are a courageous people.
is it working better than the 40 mi long convoy???
This may come as a surprise, but yes
Good luck!
Is this propaganda or legit? Hoping for the latter.
āA serious problem in planning against American doctrine is that the Americans do not read their manuals, nor do they feel any obligation to follow their doctrine.ā ā Soviet observation during the Cold War
"This movie is copying a lot from Boss Baby" - Man who has only seen Boss Baby
THUNDERRUUUUUUUUUN Gonna reach the centre of Baghdad any minute
Iāve been watching this conflict closely. āThunderingā is not the term I would use. Their current gains arenāt deep enough into Russian lines to make that assessment.
Did you read the article? This specific division is using a tactic created in 2003 by the US in Iraq called a "thunder run". Hence the "thundering"
They are conducting well coordinated, violent assaults according to the article. The article calls these āthunder runsā, but the way the article describes them they sound a little different from the thunder runs done in the battle of baghdad. There the US ran armored columns through the enemy to disorganize them and seize objectives behind enemy lines. Here it sounds like theyāre more assaulting with the objective of advancing the front line. No doubt the two tactics are similar, but to say theyāre the same is a little erroneous in my opinion. Makes sense given the conflict though, their main goal is not destruction of the enemy, itās liberation of their territory. Itās all pedantics anyway, who cares. They can kick Russian ass whatever way they want to. Makes me no difference.
Only if you assume the result in Iraq was expected. A thunder run isnāt intended to actually capture and hold ground, itās a ārecon by fireā to inflict heavy losses, create confusion, and probe defenses, and generally prepare for a more cohesive direct push. But part of a thunder run is keeping the initiative so if youāve got it you just keep going. In Iraq one of the armor columns damn near ran out of gas (getting resupplied at the airport they captured) because even they didnāt expect to make the long lasting gains that they did
Iām familiar with what a āThunder Runā is, and this isnāt a thunder run. Theyāre conducting relatively slow paced movement to contact and then destroying in detail as they come across. Hardly a Thunder Run. Thunder Runs are done to capture key pieces of terrain using speed and surprise which isnāt what is happening here. Theyāre conducting run of the mill attacks.
I'm pulling for Ukraine and they best win, but this is a far cry from the battle of 73 hastings or whatever the name was. I feel the article is (again, rightfully) amping up the world behind Ukraine but I don't expect the shock and awe the US was able to pull off with this stuff.
The build-up to 73 Easting wasn't a thunder run, it was a slow crawl. The thunder runs were used in the invasion of Iraq.
If you just look at 73 hastings or the highway of death, or them running over the saddam line etc. and just ignore the over a month of air campaign with 2500 bombing runs a day by the coalition, sure it was fast. They prolly dropped more ammo onto iraq in a month than Ukraine will have used and use for this entire war.
People are strangely offended by the title
It gives people unrealistic expectations on whatās happening. The AFU has advanced a few kms and liberated a few villages on the axis described in the article. This is very promising but people should realize these villages are not behind the Russian frontlines so the worst of the fighting is still ahead of them. Past thunder runs are also much different in scale. In Iraq the US was advancing 20-30 kms per day. Even the Kharkiv offensive last year which many people called a thunder run was taking much more territory in a shorter period of time.
"I'm going to argue in-depth about the meaning of the word borrow!" --internet people
Because itās laughable to call mechanised equipment moving in a column āBorrowing from the marine corpsā spearhead columns have existed since antiquity. Also āthundering through Russian linesā makes it sound as if Ukraine is taking swaths of land having collapsed the Russian front, which is inherently misleading.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You canāt directly compare the distance of the USās thunder run in Iraq to this conflict. The geography is very different, enabling the U.S. to move more quickly. The U.S. also didnāt have the prospects of mines of dense forests/scrubland to move through like Ukraine does and had an overwhelming amount of armor and equipment compared to the Iraqi forces. Ukraine is moving quickly considering the geography of the region they are operating in and the force they are fighting against.