I don't think it is worth following the Ukraine war anymore.
Western weapon supplies have become a constant trickle. There is no need to worry, since it is reliable. There is no need to get excited, because it's just a trickle. No really big news to be anticipated. F-16 will come eventually, that will be a big news then. But first they will announce, then training starts, then training ends, then one or two might enter combat, nothing game-changing or exciting.
The battlefield behaves the same way. Russia has exhausted its capabilities to achieve anything. Ukraine is crawling forward, insignificant village after insignificant village. No need to follow this closely. Once there are big news, you'll hear about it anyway.
The only real exciting thing that might happen is political upheaval in Russia. Putler being removed or something. Then shit really hits the fan. But it's impossible to know about things like that in advance, so again no reason to follow it closely.
t. former daily war follower
3 messages omitted.
More like crawling in circles. Some gains here, some losses there, who even cares. The war is officially stall now.
Also, the war never happens at the frontlines, it's always about resources and production. Until Russian economy is drained nothing can change so yeah, there's no point in following the war daily.
Just out of curiosity... How does one join the Wagner PMC, do they recruit people from all over the world?
Started on the 18th, they crossed the Zherebets at Karmazynovka, and creating a bulge there. Still early to tell the real significance.
1 message omitted.
More gains today, as Deepstate shows.
ISW also notes the first bits in their report for yesterday.
Sure they won't roll into Xyiywv with this, but the situation there is quite different than around Bakhmut, and close to those areas where Ukraine builds her bunkers since ~2016. Compared to that at the Zherebets river they only have some rudimentary foxhole system which they are giving up.
Every day since the counteroffensive started, Ukraine is liberating more territory.
3 messages omitted.
It's useless however. Neither side casualty reports are much credible. Plus when an army starts measuring "success" by body count, that's a sure sign of failing. See Vietnam.
Perhaps not all Bernd aware, this site tries to gather all verifiable deaths on the Russian side:
https://en.zona.media/article/2022/05/11/casualties_eng
Note:
>These numbers do not represent the actual death toll since we can only review publicly available reports including social media posts by relatives, reports in local media, and statements by the local authorities.
>The real death toll is much higher. Besides, the number of soldiers missing in action or captured is not known.
They also make handy infographics from the data.
How much of an effect would a global thermonuclear war *really* have to life on Earth?
Considering everything that life on Earth has already been through (what with having experienced five “big” mass extinction events these past 4,000,000,000 years that life has been around), aside from the dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of impact events and supervolcanic eruptions, it has been hypothesized that Earth has already been through:
#1). Struck by a Mars-sized object over 4,000,000,000 years ago.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170402015342/http://apnews.excite.com/article/20151019/us-sci--earliest_life-a400435d0d.html
#2). Almost completely being covered in snow essentially turning the entire planet into a "Snowball Earth" over 2,000,000,000 years ago after the “Great Oxygenation Event”.
#3). Hit by a gamma ray burst originating from a hypernova over 400,000,000 years ago. This basically incinerated and irradiated the entire surface of the planet, killing off most lifeforms of the time.
And yet, it would seem that life on Earth managed to survive through all of that. Also consider this: the most powerful nuclear device ever detonated by humans was the “Tsar Bomba” exploded with the equivalent of 57 megatons of TNT. By comparison: the asteroid that struck the Earth about 65,000,000 years ago and is apparently responsible for driving dinosaurs into extinction (while allowing the distant ancestors of humans and of all mammals to survive and later even somehow thrive through all of that) exploded with the equivalent of 100,000,000 megatons of TNT. The asteroid impact was of such great intensity that it released ejecta off of Earth's surface and far out into the Earth's atmosphere leading into its exposure to infrared radiation. The reentry of the irradiated debris then rained back down as giant fireballs across the entire surface of the Earth, thereby causing global firestorms and creating a sort of nuclear winter effect (effectively killing exposed organisms, and the ancestors of today's mammals lucking out by digging themselves underground.) The global debris layer deposited by the impact contained enough soot to hint that the entire terrestrial biosphere burned, with an implication of this being that this would have caused a global soot-cloud blocking out the Sun. Widespread fires increased the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere and caused a temporary greenhouse effect. Furthermore: rain and ocean water became acidic. Photosynthesis was later inhibited by a dust cloud that blocked sunlight, and resulted in a severe drop of global temperatures. There are currently a total of 13,840 nuclear warheads--only 3,750 of which are active. In the year 1986; there were up to 70,300 nuclear warheads. The majority of which seem to be much less than 25 MT each. Not only that--but the asteroid responsible for the Cretaceous-Tertiary Extinction Level Event (dinosaur death) wasn't even the biggest impact event. There were probably about a dozen more even bigger than that millions of years before. Some asteroids may even contain natural nuclear fission reactors with trace amounts of uranium--perhaps even plutonium.
While there is no doubt that a global thermonuclear war would have an absolutely devastating effect to human civilization in the short-term, how much of an effect could it have to the human species in the long-term (at a geologic timescale)? If the species Latimeria chalumnae was around 400,000,000 years ago and is still around today, how likely is it that the species Homo sapiens will still be around 400,000,000 years from now? The distant ancestors of Homo sapiens managed to live through the asteroid impact that drove dinosaurs to extinction about 65,000,000 years ago, why can't Homo sapiens live through something like that? There are still millions of people around the world today living exactly like how their ancestors did thousands of years ago. There's still pastoral nomads and hunter-gatherers, and it's estimated that there's about 20 uncontacted tribes in the world today (in the Amazon and in New Guinea.)
But anyway. The human species itself managed to survive through the Toba catastrophe that occurred about 70,000 years ago (which resulted in the global human population being reduced down to around 2,500 individuals.) While it may very well be that most humans of the 21st century (especially those of first world nations) would be poorly adapted to a post-nuclear world and most likely die off shortly after a nuclear war, there are still millions of humans throughout the world today who have been living exactly as their ancestors did millennia ago. So there would have to be at the very least 2,500 individuals grouped up together, perhaps with most (if not all of them) living within a government installation (maybe something like the Cheyenne Mountain Complex) to use as a fallout shelter. I'm not so sure on how many advances have been made in genetic modification to be used for hydroponics laboratories these last few years, but I think hydroponics may prove to be highly beneficial in such an event. Those last surviving individuals could help preserve whatever knowledge possible, and pass it down to future generations.
8 messages omitted.
Would this be the appropriate board to discuss Sumerian warfare?
19 messages omitted.
Oh right I'd forgotten of having gotten someone to translate those pages for me a few months ago:
>First mention of helmets apears on the stone relief of prince Eanatum. In burial holes of Ur, copper helmets from around 2500 bc that had some sort of leather lining inside, that evolved as protection from the earliest weapons: clubs.
>Helmets are a significant step in the evolution of army technology that effectively pushed out clubs from the battlefield. Metal head protection, gained way for another invention, a bronze axe with a hole for a stick, in a way its used in modern axes. This way the axe was secured more firmly and it was more deadly. Other weapons they used were spears and knives.
Sumeran soldiers were protected by skirts or by simple tunics made of wool from sheep or goats. On one of the reliefs, the soldiers wear tunics with hoods, ones used very frequently by sheep herders, that had metal discs sewn to them, as extra protection most probably. The shield was reinforced in places where individual boards of wood meet. Around the shield there are afew layers of lether strips. Some scientist intepret 9 metal disks as symbology for 9 soldiers in a unit.
>The ilustration depicts a soldier with a (one armed) spear and a big shield (picture right). Three thousand years that followed, had soldiers much alike.
>Example of a phalanx as its seen by historians (most likely false). To hold a spear with two hands and use a giant shield is possible only in part. So why was a big shield used then?
>Roman soldiers carried big square shields but they in fact used one handed weapons. It seems that sumerians used big shields with one handed close quarters weapons in the front lines, while the ranks behind them carried big two handed spears.
>helmets
In the graphics above their helmet looks breddy solid, and they also seem to found the ideal shape for deflecting blows too. Kudos.
>protected [...] by simple tunics made of wool from sheep or goats.
Ancient aketon/gamneson?
>phalanx
If they used something like that that implies one continuous formation in the whole length of the battlefield. No smaller tactical units (most obvious example the Roman manipulus).
Also should be wise to measure the distances between the cities.And if they had to ford the rivers to reach each other, and where were the places they could cross.
Now that Prigozhin has secured enough ammo for Wagner, will the goals of the special military operation be achieved?
2 messages omitted.
War is manlet genocide / eugenics.
Statistically speaking:
- taller people are more intelligent
- taller people are more likely to survive combat
- intelligent people are more likely to survive combat
- taller men are more likely to father sons
- returning soldier effect: after wars, more boys get born than girls
Some food for thought.
2 messages omitted.
Why does the Leopard 2 allegedly have a turret tossing problem?
It's a gimmick just to suck more on that defense budget.
Really imagine ammo detonation in that "capsule" i highly doubt it's even possible to make a real ammo detonation proof capsule inside such a small vehicle.
Besides side impact will most likely kill the crew anyway so why even bother?
Also, do they even have autoloaders?
Russian Bernds will defend this YouTube: 3sK6o_g-FV0
