Dude on the left dropped like a sack of potatoes. :-0
World's most popular community & resource for hunting in Africa since 2007
Politics
- Thread starter Longwalker
- Start date
mdwest
AH ambassador
Yep! We're in the same boat... and we do the same thing..
Hunt anything
AH legend
You are pretty much on target. We have a lot of those kit looking helicopters and para gliders that fly around our farm and everyone scrutinizes them now when before we paid no attention to them whatsoever.
mdwest
AH ambassador
It looks like the attempt was made by the "sons of abu jandal" which claims they are part of the security apparatus of the palestinian authority.. they dont want the PA negotiating with the Israelis (they appear to support Hamas in their action.. but are separate from Hamas)..
I'd be curious how the run of the mill palestinian.. one that is not affiliated with Hamas, the PA, Hezbollah, or any other governmental or quasi state/terrorist organization feels about this..
my guess is they will be supportive of the assassination attempt and dont like that Abbas has been chatting it up with the Israelis..
Wheels
AH ambassador
He was a body guard shot in the head. Palestine National Authority is now saying there wasn't an attempt on Abbas' life but others are saying it was. Not sure the entire story yet.
Hamas can't be happy Abbas has been talking to Israel.
Wheels
AH ambassador
Yea, there are still plenty of questions. Good reason for the 24 hour rule.
With social media and video's, the news cycle doesn't even last 24 hours anymore.
Hunt anything
AH legend
More like 24 second rule
sestoppelman
AH ambassador
Yes and the Soviets had higher casualties than the Nazis did. For every 1 Ukrainian casualty there are 1.5-2 Russian casualties. However for every 1 Ukrainian there are 4 Russians. Russia is a 1.8 trillion dollar economy, Ukraine is a 178 billion dollar economy. In an attritional war a bigger population and economy is usually advantageous. Also Russia given its much bigger population is likely better able to absorb its losses. Peter Zeihan stated that Russia would be able to sustain this war until it hits 500,000 casualties. Since Ukraine's population is 4x smaller than Russia's, 500K divided by 4 gives us 125K. Ukraine has already surpassed this number. Which may explain why these personnel issues are popping up...
Furthermore, this probably isn't an option that Putin would be super keen to use, but if need be he can probably get tens of thousands of soldiers from North Korea. He would likely need to give the Koreans long rang ballistic missile technology and nuclear weapons but Ukraine does not have an ally willing to give it this many soldiers.
NE 7x57
AH veteran
No one in the region wants Palestinian refuges. For one thing they do not assimilate plus they bring their terrorist groups, of which there are many, right along with them. Israel is going to have to figure out a way to reduce Hamas' power and numbers while still putting up with a huge number of Palestinians next door in whatever is left of Gaza and of course the West Bank.
The Israelis have spit Gaza into north and south. Perhaps they will concentrate on dealing with the north, eliminating as many terrorists as possible, move civilians to the south and then bulldoze Gaza City and turn it into an Israeli security zone. The lesson being, "you were given the territory of Gaza and by your actions you've lost half of it, be very careful in the future if you want to keep the rest." Obviously liberals, various middle eastern countries and Russian and China would lose their minds over this but it's more humane that what could be done.
No doubt there are some Palestinians who realize the Hamas is a cancer in their world but after seeing what they did to men, woman and children a month ago in Israel no one has any illusions what they'd do with critics in their own population. There is no good answer to the problem, none what so ever. It seems to be in Iran's interests to keep the conflict going to prevent any ties developing between Israel and her more moderate Arab neighbors. And for the Palestinian leadership bloodshed and terror is a cash cow. For the current US administration.....it's all about how is this going to play in 24.
The Israelis have spit Gaza into north and south. Perhaps they will concentrate on dealing with the north, eliminating as many terrorists as possible, move civilians to the south and then bulldoze Gaza City and turn it into an Israeli security zone. The lesson being, "you were given the territory of Gaza and by your actions you've lost half of it, be very careful in the future if you want to keep the rest." Obviously liberals, various middle eastern countries and Russian and China would lose their minds over this but it's more humane that what could be done.
No doubt there are some Palestinians who realize the Hamas is a cancer in their world but after seeing what they did to men, woman and children a month ago in Israel no one has any illusions what they'd do with critics in their own population. There is no good answer to the problem, none what so ever. It seems to be in Iran's interests to keep the conflict going to prevent any ties developing between Israel and her more moderate Arab neighbors. And for the Palestinian leadership bloodshed and terror is a cash cow. For the current US administration.....it's all about how is this going to play in 24.
I am actually surprised by the support Israel has had so far from this administration given most of their base is anti-Israel. Though, I do see it changing as the war drags on.
sestoppelman
AH ambassador
CoElkHunter
AH ambassador
I guess being too close to the speakers all those years turned his brain to mush.
Doubleplay
AH elite
Totally agreed.
Those are all absolutely valid points everyone is making (ok maybe not the likelihood of hordes of DRNK troops entering the fray). 
I would simply suggest that even operational-level positional warfare is not necessarily a war of attrition. Warfare, particularly since the dawn of the industrial age, rarely is just about numbers, it is about combat power.
As someone noted, the Confederacy was indeed dramatically outnumbered, and once Lincoln found a general willing to take the casualties to achieve ultimate victory, Grant wore down the Army of Northern Virginia in the Overland Campaign of 1864/65. But was that really attritional warfare?
I would argue it was something very different. Though Grant inflicted unsustainable casualties on Lee and suffered enormous ones himself, he did it through operational maneuver. The few occasions he forgot that, such as Cold Harbor and the first attacks at Petersburg, it was he who faced unsustainable casualties and very nearly had a mutiny on his hands among his subordinates.
Lee showed absolute brilliance in the handling of his army following the battle of the Wilderness until the end of the war. Historians have often argued over what may have happened had Lee taken the lessons of Sharpsburg to heart in 1862 and gone over to the operational defensive for the remainder of the war. That would have looked far more like what we see in Ukraine today than anything that actually happened during that war. Without a Gettysburg, I am confident most of historians would agree that the war at least would not have ended in 1865. I think most historians would also agree that sustaining support for the war beyond 1865 would have been very difficult if not impossible.
History offers us numbers of other examples where the operational defensive likely would have been or was the correct strategy. For instance, in the war of the Sixth Coalition the army of France was outnumbered by those of the UK, Russia, and their allies. I can think of very few students of the Napoleonic campaigns who believe Napoleon would have died anywhere but his bed in Paris had he not taken the Grand Army on its Quixotic march into the heart of Russia.
To date at least, following the catastrophe of the initial invasion of Ukraine, the Russian Army has shown little ability to operationally maneuver against Ukrainian forces. Perhaps one could point to the battle of Bahkmut, but I would argue we have not yet seen the final outcome of that campaign. Indeed, I would suggest they have shown no ability to even mass combat power operationally to achieve a decisive battle.
I also wonder about the actual casualty exchange rates in this conflict. The figures we are citing are those being publicly discussed by the US and British DOD and MOD respectively. They are therefore conservative. But what if one side or the other is half again higher, perhaps even 2X? I find it highly unlikely that would be the case of Ukraine, but because they continue to attempt the tactical offensive, I would not at all be surprised if Russia isn't actually approaching, even exceeding half a million.
For instance, as of yesterday, Ukraine claims to have killed 306,860 Russian troops. I think everyone would agree that number is inflated. We'll come back to it in a moment. The next question is what is the Russian WIA to KIA rate? For US forces in the European Theater of Operations in WWII it was roughly 3 to 1. I suspect those rates are closer to the campaign in Ukraine than modern US ratios which can be 10 to 1. Russian field medical capability in particular seem far closer to mid-twentieth century than twenty first century standards.
So let's cut Ukraine's claim by in half to 150,000. Assuming that 3 to 1 casualty ratio, that means Russia has already suffered 600K total casualties in this conflict. Even if their field medical services are far worse than we believe, a 2 to 1 casualty rate leaves us with 450,000 total casualties.
Moreover, this is also a war of technology - of combat power. The vast majority of Russia's modernized army is scrap metal on the steppes of Ukraine. That means these columns of attacking forces that are being immolated almost daily on the Avdiivka front are going into battle with ever more ineffective and easily destroyed equipment. So excluding casualties for a moment, I don't think many informed observers would argue that the combat capability correlation of forces hasn't gradually been tipping in Ukraine's favor for most of the war. Therefore, in modern warfare, attrition is as much about erosion of combat power as numbers of troops - in my view, far more so.
So, we come back to casualties. Again, in my view, I think casualty rate has become the latest, or perhaps last refuge of those who have been saying Ukraine can't win this war. There are more Russians, Putin will never quit, ergo Russia wins.
We will see. I believe Putin has lost the window to mobilize additional forces beyond the usual annual draft. If politically, that window ever existed. PRNK troops are not going to be deployed in their tens of thousands to Ukraine. The troops he does have are fighting with ever more inferior equipment than that of their adversaries. That is a formula that looks far more like 1917 than 1945 to me.
One of these two combatants will begin to lobby for a ceasefire and negotiations. Thus far, it clearly is not Ukraine.
I would simply suggest that even operational-level positional warfare is not necessarily a war of attrition. Warfare, particularly since the dawn of the industrial age, rarely is just about numbers, it is about combat power.As someone noted, the Confederacy was indeed dramatically outnumbered, and once Lincoln found a general willing to take the casualties to achieve ultimate victory, Grant wore down the Army of Northern Virginia in the Overland Campaign of 1864/65. But was that really attritional warfare?
I would argue it was something very different. Though Grant inflicted unsustainable casualties on Lee and suffered enormous ones himself, he did it through operational maneuver. The few occasions he forgot that, such as Cold Harbor and the first attacks at Petersburg, it was he who faced unsustainable casualties and very nearly had a mutiny on his hands among his subordinates.
Lee showed absolute brilliance in the handling of his army following the battle of the Wilderness until the end of the war. Historians have often argued over what may have happened had Lee taken the lessons of Sharpsburg to heart in 1862 and gone over to the operational defensive for the remainder of the war. That would have looked far more like what we see in Ukraine today than anything that actually happened during that war. Without a Gettysburg, I am confident most of historians would agree that the war at least would not have ended in 1865. I think most historians would also agree that sustaining support for the war beyond 1865 would have been very difficult if not impossible.
History offers us numbers of other examples where the operational defensive likely would have been or was the correct strategy. For instance, in the war of the Sixth Coalition the army of France was outnumbered by those of the UK, Russia, and their allies. I can think of very few students of the Napoleonic campaigns who believe Napoleon would have died anywhere but his bed in Paris had he not taken the Grand Army on its Quixotic march into the heart of Russia.
To date at least, following the catastrophe of the initial invasion of Ukraine, the Russian Army has shown little ability to operationally maneuver against Ukrainian forces. Perhaps one could point to the battle of Bahkmut, but I would argue we have not yet seen the final outcome of that campaign. Indeed, I would suggest they have shown no ability to even mass combat power operationally to achieve a decisive battle.
I also wonder about the actual casualty exchange rates in this conflict. The figures we are citing are those being publicly discussed by the US and British DOD and MOD respectively. They are therefore conservative. But what if one side or the other is half again higher, perhaps even 2X? I find it highly unlikely that would be the case of Ukraine, but because they continue to attempt the tactical offensive, I would not at all be surprised if Russia isn't actually approaching, even exceeding half a million.
For instance, as of yesterday, Ukraine claims to have killed 306,860 Russian troops. I think everyone would agree that number is inflated. We'll come back to it in a moment. The next question is what is the Russian WIA to KIA rate? For US forces in the European Theater of Operations in WWII it was roughly 3 to 1. I suspect those rates are closer to the campaign in Ukraine than modern US ratios which can be 10 to 1. Russian field medical capability in particular seem far closer to mid-twentieth century than twenty first century standards.
So let's cut Ukraine's claim by in half to 150,000. Assuming that 3 to 1 casualty ratio, that means Russia has already suffered 600K total casualties in this conflict. Even if their field medical services are far worse than we believe, a 2 to 1 casualty rate leaves us with 450,000 total casualties.
Moreover, this is also a war of technology - of combat power. The vast majority of Russia's modernized army is scrap metal on the steppes of Ukraine. That means these columns of attacking forces that are being immolated almost daily on the Avdiivka front are going into battle with ever more ineffective and easily destroyed equipment. So excluding casualties for a moment, I don't think many informed observers would argue that the combat capability correlation of forces hasn't gradually been tipping in Ukraine's favor for most of the war. Therefore, in modern warfare, attrition is as much about erosion of combat power as numbers of troops - in my view, far more so.
So, we come back to casualties. Again, in my view, I think casualty rate has become the latest, or perhaps last refuge of those who have been saying Ukraine can't win this war. There are more Russians, Putin will never quit, ergo Russia wins.
We will see. I believe Putin has lost the window to mobilize additional forces beyond the usual annual draft. If politically, that window ever existed. PRNK troops are not going to be deployed in their tens of thousands to Ukraine. The troops he does have are fighting with ever more inferior equipment than that of their adversaries. That is a formula that looks far more like 1917 than 1945 to me.
One of these two combatants will begin to lobby for a ceasefire and negotiations. Thus far, it clearly is not Ukraine.
Last edited:
That would be DPRK not DRNKThose are all absolutely valid points everyone is making (ok maybe not the likelihood of hordes of DRNK troops entering the fray).
As someone noted, the Confederacy was indeed dramatically outnumbered, and once Lincoln found a general willing to take the casualties to achieve ultimate victory, Grant wore down the Army of Northern Virginia in the Overland Campaign of 1864/65. But was that really attritional warfare?
I would argue it was something very different. Though Grant inflicted unsustainable casualties on Lee and suffered enormous ones himself, he did it through operational maneuver. The few occasions he forgot that, such as Cold Harbor and the first attacks at Petersburg, it was he who faced unsustainable casualties and very nearly had a mutiny on his hands among his subordinates.
Lee showed absolute brilliance in the handling of his army following the battle of the Wilderness until the end of the war. Historians have often argued over what may have happened had Lee taken the lessons of Sharpsburg to heart in 1862 and gone over to the operational defensive for the remainder of the war. That would have looked far more like what we see in Ukraine today than anything that actually happened during that war. Without a Gettysburg, I am confident most of historians would agree that the war at least would not have ended in 1865. I think most historians would also agree that sustaining support for the war beyond 1865 would have been very difficult if not impossible.
History offers us numbers of other examples where the operational defensive likely would have been or was the correct strategy. For instance, in the war of the Sixth Coalition the army of France was outnumbered by those of the UK, Russia, and their allies. I can think of very few students of the Napoleonic campaigns who believe Napoleon would have died anywhere but his bed in Paris had he not taken the Grand Army on its Quixotic march into the heart of Russia.
To date at least, following the catastrophe of the initial invasion of Ukraine, the Russian Army has shown little ability to operationally maneuver against Ukrainian forces. Perhaps one could point to the battle of Bahkmut, but I would argue we have not yet seen the final outcome of that campaign. Indeed, I would suggest they have shown no ability to even mass combat power operationally to achieve a decisive battle.
I also wonder about the actual casualty exchange rates in this conflict. The figures we are citing are those being publicly discussed by the US and British DOD and MOD respectively. They are therefore conservative. But what if one side or the other is half again higher, perhaps even 2X? I find it highly unlikely that would be the case of Ukraine, but because they continue to attempt the tactical offensive, I would not at all be surprised if Russia isn't actually approaching, even exceeding half a million.
For instance, as of yesterday, Ukraine claims to have killed 306,860 Russian troops. I think everyone would agree that number is inflated. We'll come back to it in a moment. The next question is what is the Russian WIA to KIA rate? For US forces in the European Theater of Operations in WWII it was roughly 3 to 1. I suspect those rates are closer to the campaign in Ukraine than modern US ratios which can be 10 to 1. Russian field medical capability in particular seem far closer to mid-twentieth century than twenty first century standards.
So let's cut Ukraine's claim by in half to 150,000. Assuming that 3 to 1 casualty ratio, that means Russia has already suffered 600K total casualties in this conflict. Even if their field medical services are far worse than we believe, a 2 to 1 casualty rate leaves us with 450,000 total casualties.
Moreover, this is also a war of technology - of combat power. The vast majority of Russia's modernized army is scrap metal on the steppes of Ukraine. That means these columns of attacking forces that are being immolated almost daily on the Avdiivka front are going into battle with ever more ineffective and easily destroyed equipment. So excluding casualties for a moment, I don't think many informed observers would argue that the combat capability correlation of forces hasn't gradually been tipping in Ukraine's favor for most of the war. Therefore, in modern warfare, attrition is as much about erosion of combat power as numbers of troops - in my view, far more so.
So, we come back to casualties. Again, in my view, I think casualty rate has become the latest, or perhaps last refuge of those who have been saying Ukraine can't win this war. There are more Russians, Putin will never quit, ergo Russia wins.
We will see. I believe Putin has lost the window to mobilize additional forces beyond the usual annual draft. If politically, that window ever existed. PRNK troops are not going to be deployed in their tens of thousands to Ukraine. The troops he does have are fighting with ever more inferior equipment than that of their adversaries. That is a formula that looks far more like 1917 than 1945 to me.
One of these two combatants will begin to lobby for a ceasefire and negotiations. Thus far, it clearly is not Ukraine.
Wheels
AH ambassador
Where USAID really goes.
Hamas leaders worth staggering $11B revel in luxury in US ally Qatar— as Gazans suffer
Hamas leaders worth staggering $11B revel in luxury — while Gaza’s people suffer
Three of the terror group’s most senior figures are able fly private and relax in safety in the tiny emirate — a key US ally — while enjoying an $11bn fortune between them.
nypost.com
geoff rath
AH elite
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2017
- Messages
- 1,569
- Reaction score
- 2,442
Except for tens of thousands of Hamas supporters in western countries ...
Hunt anything
AH legend
I stand corrected, the mush heads in our country didn’t even cross my mind.
Members online
- Houston Bill
- Jager Waffen74
- saswart
- GaryN
- roklok
- pimes
- Moosemind
- TROPHY DESTINATIONS
- Schroeder
- Tex .416
- Stompbox
- mgstucson
- Woodcarver
- BJH65
- wildwilderness
- Dieseljzanzibar
- mark-hunter
- Wooster
- MontanaPat
- Beauceron
- Roguemeister
- Anton Spelec
- mooze
- Mtn_Infantry
- CZDiesel
- 1:66 twiste@d
- WesRic404Jeff
- FARO EAST NORTH CAMEROON
- Inline6
- SWARA
- JarrodAlla
- Anbessa Gedai
- HuntingGold
- russ473
- Mekaniks
- Capt. Michael
- Hunter-Habib
- TEXLNGHRN
- Henke oe
- Tamboti
- Pat McGroin
- Frederik
- Omar Chavarria
- potatojudge
- Tug
- 458 Exp
- Rickmt
- dchum
- jreidthompson
- CBH Australia
Forum statistics
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Who is the best shipping company to use from Limpopo to Houston these days?- Latest: Mtn_Infantry
Latest profile posts
mrpoindexter wrote on Charlm's profile.
Hello. I see you hunted with Sampie recently. If you don't mind me asking, where did you hunt with him? Zim or SA? And was it with a bow? What did you hunt?
I am possibly going to book with him soon.
I am possibly going to book with him soon.
Currently doing a load development on a .404 Jeffrey... it's always surprising to load .423 caliber bullets into a .404 caliber rifle. But we love it when we get 400 Gr North Fork SS bullets to 2300 FPS, those should hammer down on buffalo. Next up are the Cutting Edge solids and then Raptors... load 200 rounds of ammo for the customer and on to the next gun!