[Goose]

In the end the missile barrage last night wasn't as massive as people expected, with Ukraine reporting they shot down 15 of 18 missiles launched.  With the amount of strategic bombers that were in the air and the naval vessels, that's a relatively lighter load.  I'm sure there are many ways to read into that, but it seems the night could've been much worse.

Interestingly, the reports I read referred to TU-95s launching KH-101 and KH-555 missiles. The navy of course would be firing Kalibrs. None of these missiles require high performance SAMs to bring down, so probably no Patriots required. The real problem is detecting them, due to their low cruise altitudes. Probably they are getting at least some NATO help. The Russians are (finally!) using the ability to program an evasive course into their Kalibr missiles. For a very long time it was always straight from launch to target. Evasive courses complicate the Ukraine's strategy considerably. They can't assume they know where the missile is going and plan to shoot it down as it approaches it's target.

[Goose]

In the end the missile barrage last night wasn't as massive as people expected, with Ukraine reporting they shot down 15 of 18 missiles launched.  With the amount of strategic bombers that were in the air and the naval vessels, that's a relatively lighter load.  I'm sure there are many ways to read into that, but it seems the night could've been much worse.

Interestingly, the reports I read referred to TU-95s launching KH-101 and KH-555 missiles. The navy of course would be firing Kalibrs. None of these missiles require high performance SAMs to bring down, so probably no Patriots required. The real problem is detecting them, due to their low cruise altitudes. Probably they are getting at least some NATO help. The Russians are (finally!) using the ability to program an evasive course into their Kalibr missiles. For a very long time it was always straight from launch to target. Evasive courses complicate the Ukraine's strategy considerably. They can't assume they know where the missile is going and plan to shoot it down as it approaches it's target.

[GK3]

The April 30 issue of ISW's discussion of the Ukraine War is quite interesting.  The comings and goings and whose on first mess that was and is the Russian command structure is hard to believe.

https://understandingwar.org/backgrounde...023#_edn56

[GK3]

The April 30 issue of ISW's discussion of the Ukraine War is quite interesting.  The comings and goings and whose on first mess that was and is the Russian command structure is hard to believe.

https://understandingwar.org/backgrounde...023#_edn56

[dabigv13]

Some more on Patriot. Apparently conflicting information on whether Ukraine has the newer PAC3 hit to kill interceptors or the PAC2 explosive warhead interceptors.

https://kyivindependent.com/patriot-air-...n-ukraine/

[dabigv13]

Some more on Patriot. Apparently conflicting information on whether Ukraine has the newer PAC3 hit to kill interceptors or the PAC2 explosive warhead interceptors.

https://kyivindependent.com/patriot-air-...n-ukraine/

[Goose]

Some more on Patriot. Apparently conflicting information on whether Ukraine has the newer PAC3 hit to kill interceptors or the PAC2 explosive warhead interceptors.

https://kyivindependent.com/patriot-air-...n-ukraine/

Good article. Thanks for posting it!

I find it almost hilarious seeing a USAF General standing by a Patriot battery, as if he "likes" them. The three enemies the USAF fears more than the Chinese and Russians are 1) Naval air, 2) Army Air, and 3) Army SAMs. While this is intended as a joke, there is more than a bit of truth behind it. The army SAMs have never been much liked by the USAF because 1) they take away from the air force budget and 2) they imply the air force can't/won't protect the army from other air forces. That is one of the reasons the army started stressing anti-missile targets for the Patriot, because that is definitely one of their "assigned tasks" and the USAF couldn't argue they could do it "better". The fact it can still deal with "leakers" the USAF didn't get is a bonus that the army need not stress. NASAMS is of course a Norwegian system and not something the army actually wanted. I also have a bridge for sale.

[Goose]

Some more on Patriot. Apparently conflicting information on whether Ukraine has the newer PAC3 hit to kill interceptors or the PAC2 explosive warhead interceptors.

https://kyivindependent.com/patriot-air-...n-ukraine/

Good article. Thanks for posting it!

I find it almost hilarious seeing a USAF General standing by a Patriot battery, as if he "likes" them. The three enemies the USAF fears more than the Chinese and Russians are 1) Naval air, 2) Army Air, and 3) Army SAMs. While this is intended as a joke, there is more than a bit of truth behind it. The army SAMs have never been much liked by the USAF because 1) they take away from the air force budget and 2) they imply the air force can't/won't protect the army from other air forces. That is one of the reasons the army started stressing anti-missile targets for the Patriot, because that is definitely one of their "assigned tasks" and the USAF couldn't argue they could do it "better". The fact it can still deal with "leakers" the USAF didn't get is a bonus that the army need not stress. NASAMS is of course a Norwegian system and not something the army actually wanted. I also have a bridge for sale.

[gocard14]

Some more on Patriot. Apparently conflicting information on whether Ukraine has the newer PAC3 hit to kill interceptors or the PAC2 explosive warhead interceptors.

https://kyivindependent.com/patriot-air-...n-ukraine/

Good article. Thanks for posting it!

I find it almost hilarious seeing a USAF General standing by a Patriot battery, as if he "likes" them. The three enemies the USAF fears more than the Chinese and Russians are 1) Naval air, 2) Army Air, and 3) Army SAMs. While this is intended as a joke, there is more than a bit of truth behind it. The army SAMs have never been much liked by the USAF because 1) they take away from the air force budget and 2) they imply the air force can't/won't protect the army from other air forces. That is one of the reasons the army started stressing anti-missile targets for the Patriot, because that is definitely one of their "assigned tasks" and the USAF couldn't argue they could do it "better". The fact it can still deal with "leakers" the USAF didn't get is a bonus that the army need not stress. NASAMS is of course a Norwegian system and not something the army actually wanted. I also have a bridge for sale.

Is it true that US Army operates over 50 Patriot batteries? If so I'd have to imagine we can spare more without significantly impacting readiness. The US proper would be a nightmare to attack via air, plus we have the air force. In terms of deployment, it's hard to imagine a deployment or multiple deployments that require that amount of air coverage. In the event of a chinese invasion of Taiwan, I imagine it would be extremely difficult to transport batteries to Taiwan and likely too late to make a major impact.

[gocard14]

Some more on Patriot. Apparently conflicting information on whether Ukraine has the newer PAC3 hit to kill interceptors or the PAC2 explosive warhead interceptors.

https://kyivindependent.com/patriot-air-...n-ukraine/

Good article. Thanks for posting it!

I find it almost hilarious seeing a USAF General standing by a Patriot battery, as if he "likes" them. The three enemies the USAF fears more than the Chinese and Russians are 1) Naval air, 2) Army Air, and 3) Army SAMs. While this is intended as a joke, there is more than a bit of truth behind it. The army SAMs have never been much liked by the USAF because 1) they take away from the air force budget and 2) they imply the air force can't/won't protect the army from other air forces. That is one of the reasons the army started stressing anti-missile targets for the Patriot, because that is definitely one of their "assigned tasks" and the USAF couldn't argue they could do it "better". The fact it can still deal with "leakers" the USAF didn't get is a bonus that the army need not stress. NASAMS is of course a Norwegian system and not something the army actually wanted. I also have a bridge for sale.

Is it true that US Army operates over 50 Patriot batteries? If so I'd have to imagine we can spare more without significantly impacting readiness. The US proper would be a nightmare to attack via air, plus we have the air force. In terms of deployment, it's hard to imagine a deployment or multiple deployments that require that amount of air coverage. In the event of a chinese invasion of Taiwan, I imagine it would be extremely difficult to transport batteries to Taiwan and likely too late to make a major impact.

[dabigv13]

Kremlin hit by two drones. Unclear if this was a Ukrainian attack or Russian false flag to rally support at home. If the latter it seems pretty dumb IMHO but that hasn't stopped Russia before.
[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/DarthPutinKGB/status...91328?s=20
[/tweet]

This video of the road into Bakhmut also interesting
[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/GirkinGirkin/status/...78179?s=20[/tweet]

Ukrainian drone attack on oil depot across Kerch strait from Crimea. There have also been several recent attacks on Russian railways. Perhaps shaping attacks in preparation for the offensive. 
[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/statu...38466?s=20
[/tweet]

[dabigv13]

Kremlin hit by two drones. Unclear if this was a Ukrainian attack or Russian false flag to rally support at home. If the latter it seems pretty dumb IMHO but that hasn't stopped Russia before.
[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/DarthPutinKGB/status...91328?s=20
[/tweet]

This video of the road into Bakhmut also interesting
[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/GirkinGirkin/status/...78179?s=20[/tweet]

Ukrainian drone attack on oil depot across Kerch strait from Crimea. There have also been several recent attacks on Russian railways. Perhaps shaping attacks in preparation for the offensive. 
[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/statu...38466?s=20
[/tweet]

[M T]

Kremlin hit by two drones. Unclear if this was a Ukrainian attack or Russian false flag to rally support at home. If the latter it seems pretty dumb IMHO but that hasn't stopped Russia before.

I thought the false flag technique was Russian standard methodology.  Surely they could rig together something made from downed Ukrainian drones and put it up in the skies over the Kremlin to make a good photo op without any threat.   They would use it to bolster flagging Russian sentiments and as an excuse to put nukes in the discussion again.

But then, it could actually be some Ukrainian supporters trying something that surely wouldn't get through.  THAT would be pretty dumb IMHO.

[M T]

Kremlin hit by two drones. Unclear if this was a Ukrainian attack or Russian false flag to rally support at home. If the latter it seems pretty dumb IMHO but that hasn't stopped Russia before.

I thought the false flag technique was Russian standard methodology.  Surely they could rig together something made from downed Ukrainian drones and put it up in the skies over the Kremlin to make a good photo op without any threat.   They would use it to bolster flagging Russian sentiments and as an excuse to put nukes in the discussion again.

But then, it could actually be some Ukrainian supporters trying something that surely wouldn't get through.  THAT would be pretty dumb IMHO.

[Goose]

Some more on Patriot. Apparently conflicting information on whether Ukraine has the newer PAC3 hit to kill interceptors or the PAC2 explosive warhead interceptors.

https://kyivindependent.com/patriot-air-...n-ukraine/

Good article. Thanks for posting it!

I find it almost hilarious seeing a USAF General standing by a Patriot battery, as if he "likes" them. The three enemies the USAF fears more than the Chinese and Russians are 1) Naval air, 2) Army Air, and 3) Army SAMs. While this is intended as a joke, there is more than a bit of truth behind it. The army SAMs have never been much liked by the USAF because 1) they take away from the air force budget and 2) they imply the air force can't/won't protect the army from other air forces. That is one of the reasons the army started stressing anti-missile targets for the Patriot, because that is definitely one of their "assigned tasks" and the USAF couldn't argue they could do it "better". The fact it can still deal with "leakers" the USAF didn't get is a bonus that the army need not stress. NASAMS is of course a Norwegian system and not something the army actually wanted. I also have a bridge for sale.

Is it true that US Army operates over 50 Patriot batteries? If so I'd have to imagine we can spare more without significantly impacting readiness. The US proper would be a nightmare to attack via air, plus we have the air force. In terms of deployment, it's hard to imagine a deployment or multiple deployments that require that amount of air coverage. In the event of a chinese invasion of Taiwan, I imagine it would be extremely difficult to transport batteries to Taiwan and likely too late to make a major impact.

The US Army has about 60 Patriot batteries. The material condition of these batteries vary considerably. The number and types of missiles that equip each battery is obviously closely held, but AFAIK that also varies considerably. The Patriot has no role in defending the continental US. Many of the Patriot batteries are forward deployed in Europe and the middle east, where they protect the US military from attack by tactical ballistic and cruise missiles. The Army feels pretty strongly that they need to be where they are. That may not be correct, but getting such batteries released will be like pulling teeth. The Army has also Patriot batteries that will deploy with any large army formation sent to "foreign" destinations. These batteries are also considered essential, even though most of the time they are not in active "use". If the Army has to go fight, it wants to take them along.

Understandable, but it is indeed a decision the CIC and his assistants has to weigh. We have pried at least one battery loose. Probably we can get more, but how many is a judgement call. As the Israelis have figured out, it is necessary to have a very capable anti-missile system, but it also has to be affordable enough you can actually use it. Even they haven't got that one handled yet. We here in the USA aren't even trying very hard, which leaves us with hard choices instead. This is one of them.

[Goose]

Some more on Patriot. Apparently conflicting information on whether Ukraine has the newer PAC3 hit to kill interceptors or the PAC2 explosive warhead interceptors.

https://kyivindependent.com/patriot-air-...n-ukraine/

Good article. Thanks for posting it!

I find it almost hilarious seeing a USAF General standing by a Patriot battery, as if he "likes" them. The three enemies the USAF fears more than the Chinese and Russians are 1) Naval air, 2) Army Air, and 3) Army SAMs. While this is intended as a joke, there is more than a bit of truth behind it. The army SAMs have never been much liked by the USAF because 1) they take away from the air force budget and 2) they imply the air force can't/won't protect the army from other air forces. That is one of the reasons the army started stressing anti-missile targets for the Patriot, because that is definitely one of their "assigned tasks" and the USAF couldn't argue they could do it "better". The fact it can still deal with "leakers" the USAF didn't get is a bonus that the army need not stress. NASAMS is of course a Norwegian system and not something the army actually wanted. I also have a bridge for sale.

Is it true that US Army operates over 50 Patriot batteries? If so I'd have to imagine we can spare more without significantly impacting readiness. The US proper would be a nightmare to attack via air, plus we have the air force. In terms of deployment, it's hard to imagine a deployment or multiple deployments that require that amount of air coverage. In the event of a chinese invasion of Taiwan, I imagine it would be extremely difficult to transport batteries to Taiwan and likely too late to make a major impact.

The US Army has about 60 Patriot batteries. The material condition of these batteries vary considerably. The number and types of missiles that equip each battery is obviously closely held, but AFAIK that also varies considerably. The Patriot has no role in defending the continental US. Many of the Patriot batteries are forward deployed in Europe and the middle east, where they protect the US military from attack by tactical ballistic and cruise missiles. The Army feels pretty strongly that they need to be where they are. That may not be correct, but getting such batteries released will be like pulling teeth. The Army has also Patriot batteries that will deploy with any large army formation sent to "foreign" destinations. These batteries are also considered essential, even though most of the time they are not in active "use". If the Army has to go fight, it wants to take them along.

Understandable, but it is indeed a decision the CIC and his assistants has to weigh. We have pried at least one battery loose. Probably we can get more, but how many is a judgement call. As the Israelis have figured out, it is necessary to have a very capable anti-missile system, but it also has to be affordable enough you can actually use it. Even they haven't got that one handled yet. We here in the USA aren't even trying very hard, which leaves us with hard choices instead. This is one of them.

[OutsiderFan]

What do y'all think the odds are that Ukraine launches its counterattack on Russian Victory Day, May 9? And a related question...

Will the military parade in Moscow feature equipment and soldiers that will make it easier for Ukraine to re-capture territory?

[OutsiderFan]

What do y'all think the odds are that Ukraine launches its counterattack on Russian Victory Day, May 9? And a related question...

Will the military parade in Moscow feature equipment and soldiers that will make it easier for Ukraine to re-capture territory?

[dabigv13]

Kremlin hit by two drones. Unclear if this was a Ukrainian attack or Russian false flag to rally support at home. If the latter it seems pretty dumb IMHO but that hasn't stopped Russia before.

I thought the false flag technique was Russian standard methodology.  Surely they could rig together something made from downed Ukrainian drones and put it up in the skies over the Kremlin to make a good photo op without any threat.   They would use it to bolster flagging Russian sentiments and as an excuse to put nukes in the discussion again.

But then, it could actually be some Ukrainian supporters trying something that surely wouldn't get through.  THAT would be pretty dumb IMHO.

I mean, it just seems really embarassing. Moscow has made a big show of putting Pantsir's on rooftops and then two drones hit the Kremlin before their big parade?

That's supposed to make Russians more enthusiastic for the war?

Russia hasn't needed an excuse to vaguely threaten nuclear war in the past.

Again, Russia doing dumb shit is pretty routine so I wouldn't put it past them.

Regarding the parade, Russia will probably field some of their fancy kit like Armata tanks and Felon aircraft which have yet to be fielded in the war, probably because they aren't really very good and they don't have much of it anyway. I suppose it could reduce their effectiveness to some degree in that there probably aren't a ton of Russian pilots and tankers who are sitting around doing nothing.

[dabigv13]

Kremlin hit by two drones. Unclear if this was a Ukrainian attack or Russian false flag to rally support at home. If the latter it seems pretty dumb IMHO but that hasn't stopped Russia before.

I thought the false flag technique was Russian standard methodology.  Surely they could rig together something made from downed Ukrainian drones and put it up in the skies over the Kremlin to make a good photo op without any threat.   They would use it to bolster flagging Russian sentiments and as an excuse to put nukes in the discussion again.

But then, it could actually be some Ukrainian supporters trying something that surely wouldn't get through.  THAT would be pretty dumb IMHO.

I mean, it just seems really embarassing. Moscow has made a big show of putting Pantsir's on rooftops and then two drones hit the Kremlin before their big parade?

That's supposed to make Russians more enthusiastic for the war?

Russia hasn't needed an excuse to vaguely threaten nuclear war in the past.

Again, Russia doing dumb shit is pretty routine so I wouldn't put it past them.

Regarding the parade, Russia will probably field some of their fancy kit like Armata tanks and Felon aircraft which have yet to be fielded in the war, probably because they aren't really very good and they don't have much of it anyway. I suppose it could reduce their effectiveness to some degree in that there probably aren't a ton of Russian pilots and tankers who are sitting around doing nothing.

[Goose]

Regarding the parade, Russia will probably field some of their fancy kit like Armata tanks and Felon aircraft which have yet to be fielded in the war, probably because they aren't really very good and they don't have much of it anyway. I suppose it could reduce their effectiveness to some degree in that there probably aren't a ton of Russian pilots and tankers who are sitting around doing nothing.

You might be correct about the "fancy stuff", but it wouldn't amaze me if the "show" is old stuff and not much of that. The parades have been canceled in other cities, possibly to allow enough hardware for one in Moscow. It also wouldn't amaze me if this one got cancelled too, on the alleged grounds that the "Ukrainian terrorists" would cause civilian casualties. Anything is possible with Putin, but I am of the opinion that they don't have many "show units" left intact and doing a parade may turn out to be beyond them.

[Goose]

Regarding the parade, Russia will probably field some of their fancy kit like Armata tanks and Felon aircraft which have yet to be fielded in the war, probably because they aren't really very good and they don't have much of it anyway. I suppose it could reduce their effectiveness to some degree in that there probably aren't a ton of Russian pilots and tankers who are sitting around doing nothing.

You might be correct about the "fancy stuff", but it wouldn't amaze me if the "show" is old stuff and not much of that. The parades have been canceled in other cities, possibly to allow enough hardware for one in Moscow. It also wouldn't amaze me if this one got cancelled too, on the alleged grounds that the "Ukrainian terrorists" would cause civilian casualties. Anything is possible with Putin, but I am of the opinion that they don't have many "show units" left intact and doing a parade may turn out to be beyond them.

[fullmetal]

Putin began his rise to power with false flag operations in Chechnya and the crushing grip of nationalism that followed.  He's a KGB man to the end.

[fullmetal]

Putin began his rise to power with false flag operations in Chechnya and the crushing grip of nationalism that followed.  He's a KGB man to the end.

[ADPinWDC]

The April 30 issue of ISW's discussion of the Ukraine War is quite interesting.  The comings and goings and whose on first mess that was and is the Russian command structure is hard to believe.

https://understandingwar.org/backgrounde...023#_edn56

ISW brings real insider knowledge.  I have had a chance to work with General Keane, and he is "read in" on a lot of action.  
He was Deputy Commander at CENTCOM under Petraeus so he knows a lot about the general theater and the weaponry.  

But, from here in WDC, both parties struggle with minority factions that do not see strategic value in Ukraine. 
Bernie Sanders et.al. want to cut the DOD by $400B; "Stop forever War".  
Some of the Right Wingers see China as a MUCH bigger threat, and Ukraine is a deliberate distraction by the Russia-China Tandem.

[ADPinWDC]

The April 30 issue of ISW's discussion of the Ukraine War is quite interesting.  The comings and goings and whose on first mess that was and is the Russian command structure is hard to believe.

https://understandingwar.org/backgrounde...023#_edn56

ISW brings real insider knowledge.  I have had a chance to work with General Keane, and he is "read in" on a lot of action.  
He was Deputy Commander at CENTCOM under Petraeus so he knows a lot about the general theater and the weaponry.  

But, from here in WDC, both parties struggle with minority factions that do not see strategic value in Ukraine. 
Bernie Sanders et.al. want to cut the DOD by $400B; "Stop forever War".  
Some of the Right Wingers see China as a MUCH bigger threat, and Ukraine is a deliberate distraction by the Russia-China Tandem.

[GK3]

The April 30 issue of ISW's discussion of the Ukraine War is quite interesting.  The comings and goings and whose on first mess that was and is the Russian command structure is hard to believe.

https://understandingwar.org/backgrounde...023#_edn56

ISW brings real insider knowledge.  I have had a chance to work with General Keane, and he is "read in" on a lot of action.  
He was Deputy Commander at CENTCOM under Petraeus so he knows a lot about the general theater and the weaponry.  

But, from here in WDC, both parties struggle with minority factions that do not see strategic value in Ukraine. 
Bernie Sanders et.al. want to cut the DOD by $400B; "Stop forever War".  
Some of the Right Wingers see China as a MUCH bigger threat, and Ukraine is a deliberate distraction by the Russia-China Tandem.

True, but we have seldom gone to war with everyone voting Yes.  Thanks to Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt finally was able to support England the way he wanted.  Back then being an Isolationist made sense to some, we didn't need them so why get involved.  Now the world is a much, much smaller place and if you are one of the big kids on the block you are either going to have to take a position and act on it, or get over run.  Both Russia and China will steal our secrets and technological advances as long as we make it easy for them.  It also means that we don't have them money to do everything we would like to do.  You have to draw a line in the sand someplace, sometime and stick to it.

[GK3]

The April 30 issue of ISW's discussion of the Ukraine War is quite interesting.  The comings and goings and whose on first mess that was and is the Russian command structure is hard to believe.

https://understandingwar.org/backgrounde...023#_edn56

ISW brings real insider knowledge.  I have had a chance to work with General Keane, and he is "read in" on a lot of action.  
He was Deputy Commander at CENTCOM under Petraeus so he knows a lot about the general theater and the weaponry.  

But, from here in WDC, both parties struggle with minority factions that do not see strategic value in Ukraine. 
Bernie Sanders et.al. want to cut the DOD by $400B; "Stop forever War".  
Some of the Right Wingers see China as a MUCH bigger threat, and Ukraine is a deliberate distraction by the Russia-China Tandem.

True, but we have seldom gone to war with everyone voting Yes.  Thanks to Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt finally was able to support England the way he wanted.  Back then being an Isolationist made sense to some, we didn't need them so why get involved.  Now the world is a much, much smaller place and if you are one of the big kids on the block you are either going to have to take a position and act on it, or get over run.  Both Russia and China will steal our secrets and technological advances as long as we make it easy for them.  It also means that we don't have them money to do everything we would like to do.  You have to draw a line in the sand someplace, sometime and stick to it.

[Goose]

The April 30 issue of ISW's discussion of the Ukraine War is quite interesting.  The comings and goings and whose on first mess that was and is the Russian command structure is hard to believe.

https://understandingwar.org/backgrounde...023#_edn56

ISW brings real insider knowledge.  I have had a chance to work with General Keane, and he is "read in" on a lot of action.  
He was Deputy Commander at CENTCOM under Petraeus so he knows a lot about the general theater and the weaponry.  

But, from here in WDC, both parties struggle with minority factions that do not see strategic value in Ukraine. 
Bernie Sanders et.al. want to cut the DOD by $400B; "Stop forever War".  
Some of the Right Wingers see China as a MUCH bigger threat, and Ukraine is a deliberate distraction by the Russia-China Tandem.

True, but we have seldom gone to war with everyone voting Yes.  Thanks to Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt finally was able to support England the way he wanted.

Actually, it was thanks to Hitler declaring war on the US. Had Hitler not done so, Roosevelt would have had a devil of a time getting Congress or the populace to support a "Europe first" i.e. Help England policy. While in the long run such a policy "made sense", the population was mad at Japan, not Germany, because of Pearl Harbor. The isolationist elements in Congress would be easily outflanked on Japan, but not on Germany. The declaration of war on Dec. 8 was against the Empire of Japan only. The argument would have been made loud and long that one enemy was enough, no need to take on Germany if we didn't have to. That argument would have had lots of traction. Hitler took that off the table on Dec. 11 with his declaration of war. Only then did the US respond in kind.

[Goose]

The April 30 issue of ISW's discussion of the Ukraine War is quite interesting.  The comings and goings and whose on first mess that was and is the Russian command structure is hard to believe.

https://understandingwar.org/backgrounde...023#_edn56

ISW brings real insider knowledge.  I have had a chance to work with General Keane, and he is "read in" on a lot of action.  
He was Deputy Commander at CENTCOM under Petraeus so he knows a lot about the general theater and the weaponry.  

But, from here in WDC, both parties struggle with minority factions that do not see strategic value in Ukraine. 
Bernie Sanders et.al. want to cut the DOD by $400B; "Stop forever War".  
Some of the Right Wingers see China as a MUCH bigger threat, and Ukraine is a deliberate distraction by the Russia-China Tandem.

True, but we have seldom gone to war with everyone voting Yes.  Thanks to Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt finally was able to support England the way he wanted.

Actually, it was thanks to Hitler declaring war on the US. Had Hitler not done so, Roosevelt would have had a devil of a time getting Congress or the populace to support a "Europe first" i.e. Help England policy. While in the long run such a policy "made sense", the population was mad at Japan, not Germany, because of Pearl Harbor. The isolationist elements in Congress would be easily outflanked on Japan, but not on Germany. The declaration of war on Dec. 8 was against the Empire of Japan only. The argument would have been made loud and long that one enemy was enough, no need to take on Germany if we didn't have to. That argument would have had lots of traction. Hitler took that off the table on Dec. 11 with his declaration of war. Only then did the US respond in kind.

[Nan3cy]

The April 30 issue of ISW's discussion of the Ukraine War is quite interesting.  The comings and goings and whose on first mess that was and is the Russian command structure is hard to believe.

https://understandingwar.org/backgrounde...023#_edn56

ISW brings real insider knowledge.  I have had a chance to work with General Keane, and he is "read in" on a lot of action.  
He was Deputy Commander at CENTCOM under Petraeus so he knows a lot about the general theater and the weaponry.  

But, from here in WDC, both parties struggle with minority factions that do not see strategic value in Ukraine. 
Bernie Sanders et.al. want to cut the DOD by $400B; "Stop forever War".  
Some of the Right Wingers see China as a MUCH bigger threat, and Ukraine is a deliberate distraction by the Russia-China Tandem.

True, but we have seldom gone to war with everyone voting Yes.  Thanks to Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt finally was able to support England the way he wanted.

Actually, it was thanks to Hitler declaring war on the US. Had Hitler not done so, Roosevelt would have had a devil of a time getting Congress or the populace to support a "Europe first" i.e. Help England policy. While in the long run such a policy "made sense", the population was mad at Japan, not Germany, because of Pearl Harbor. The isolationist elements in Congress would be easily outflanked on Japan, but not on Germany. The declaration of war on Dec. 8 was against the Empire of Japan only. The argument would have been made loud and long that one enemy was enough, no need to take on Germany if we didn't have to. That argument would have had lots of traction. Hitler took that off the table on Dec. 11 with his declaration of war. Only then did the US respond in kind.

Agreed. Goose, what’s your take on why Hitler declared war on the US? Aside from invading the Soviet Union, it’s always seemed to me as if that was the stupidest thing Hitler did during WWII.

[Nan3cy]

The April 30 issue of ISW's discussion of the Ukraine War is quite interesting.  The comings and goings and whose on first mess that was and is the Russian command structure is hard to believe.

https://understandingwar.org/backgrounde...023#_edn56

ISW brings real insider knowledge.  I have had a chance to work with General Keane, and he is "read in" on a lot of action.  
He was Deputy Commander at CENTCOM under Petraeus so he knows a lot about the general theater and the weaponry.  

But, from here in WDC, both parties struggle with minority factions that do not see strategic value in Ukraine. 
Bernie Sanders et.al. want to cut the DOD by $400B; "Stop forever War".  
Some of the Right Wingers see China as a MUCH bigger threat, and Ukraine is a deliberate distraction by the Russia-China Tandem.

True, but we have seldom gone to war with everyone voting Yes.  Thanks to Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt finally was able to support England the way he wanted.

Actually, it was thanks to Hitler declaring war on the US. Had Hitler not done so, Roosevelt would have had a devil of a time getting Congress or the populace to support a "Europe first" i.e. Help England policy. While in the long run such a policy "made sense", the population was mad at Japan, not Germany, because of Pearl Harbor. The isolationist elements in Congress would be easily outflanked on Japan, but not on Germany. The declaration of war on Dec. 8 was against the Empire of Japan only. The argument would have been made loud and long that one enemy was enough, no need to take on Germany if we didn't have to. That argument would have had lots of traction. Hitler took that off the table on Dec. 11 with his declaration of war. Only then did the US respond in kind.

Agreed. Goose, what’s your take on why Hitler declared war on the US? Aside from invading the Soviet Union, it’s always seemed to me as if that was the stupidest thing Hitler did during WWII.

[Goose]

The April 30 issue of ISW's discussion of the Ukraine War is quite interesting.  The comings and goings and whose on first mess that was and is the Russian command structure is hard to believe.

https://understandingwar.org/backgrounde...023#_edn56

ISW brings real insider knowledge.  I have had a chance to work with General Keane, and he is "read in" on a lot of action.  
He was Deputy Commander at CENTCOM under Petraeus so he knows a lot about the general theater and the weaponry.  

But, from here in WDC, both parties struggle with minority factions that do not see strategic value in Ukraine. 
Bernie Sanders et.al. want to cut the DOD by $400B; "Stop forever War".  
Some of the Right Wingers see China as a MUCH bigger threat, and Ukraine is a deliberate distraction by the Russia-China Tandem.

True, but we have seldom gone to war with everyone voting Yes.  Thanks to Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt finally was able to support England the way he wanted.

Actually, it was thanks to Hitler declaring war on the US. Had Hitler not done so, Roosevelt would have had a devil of a time getting Congress or the populace to support a "Europe first" i.e. Help England policy. While in the long run such a policy "made sense", the population was mad at Japan, not Germany, because of Pearl Harbor. The isolationist elements in Congress would be easily outflanked on Japan, but not on Germany. The declaration of war on Dec. 8 was against the Empire of Japan only. The argument would have been made loud and long that one enemy was enough, no need to take on Germany if we didn't have to. That argument would have had lots of traction. Hitler took that off the table on Dec. 11 with his declaration of war. Only then did the US respond in kind.

Agreed. Goose, what’s your take on why Hitler declared war on the US? Aside from invading the Soviet Union, it’s always seemed to me as if that was the stupidest thing Hitler did during WWII.

Interestingly, this topic has become somewhat "current" again. The Axis treaty required the other nations to declare war on the opponent if any Axis power was attacked. Japan was not attacked by the US, so Italy and Germany were not "legally" bound to declare war on the US. The "rational" explanation of Hitler's action is as follows:

Hitler intended to invade Russia within the next six months or so. It would be very useful to him if Japan would then declare war against Russia, because it would have forced Russia to at least retain, if not utilize, significant forces in the far east. This would be true even if Japan wasn't real "active" in it's war against Russia. Obviously, the more pressure they put on Russia, the better. Hitler hoped that his declaration against the US would create a moral obligation for Japan to do the same. Hitler knew Japan was reluctant to antagonize Russia. Their recent ass-kicking by the Russians made them a bit "gun shy". They had a non-aggression pact with them (as did Germany) and wanted to keep it that way. Hitler couldn't openly share his plans with Japan, but he knew they were leaning away from a conflict with Russia. He wanted to change that. His attempt failed.

The other possibility is that Hitler was just an insane, irrational dictator and got carried away with his power trip. He also had little regard for the military potential of the US. On top of that, he was mad at the US for our openly one-sided support of the UK, including convoy escort to the mid-Atlantic. These emotional factors may have pushed him "over the top".

[Goose]

The April 30 issue of ISW's discussion of the Ukraine War is quite interesting.  The comings and goings and whose on first mess that was and is the Russian command structure is hard to believe.

https://understandingwar.org/backgrounde...023#_edn56

ISW brings real insider knowledge.  I have had a chance to work with General Keane, and he is "read in" on a lot of action.  
He was Deputy Commander at CENTCOM under Petraeus so he knows a lot about the general theater and the weaponry.  

But, from here in WDC, both parties struggle with minority factions that do not see strategic value in Ukraine. 
Bernie Sanders et.al. want to cut the DOD by $400B; "Stop forever War".  
Some of the Right Wingers see China as a MUCH bigger threat, and Ukraine is a deliberate distraction by the Russia-China Tandem.

True, but we have seldom gone to war with everyone voting Yes.  Thanks to Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt finally was able to support England the way he wanted.

Actually, it was thanks to Hitler declaring war on the US. Had Hitler not done so, Roosevelt would have had a devil of a time getting Congress or the populace to support a "Europe first" i.e. Help England policy. While in the long run such a policy "made sense", the population was mad at Japan, not Germany, because of Pearl Harbor. The isolationist elements in Congress would be easily outflanked on Japan, but not on Germany. The declaration of war on Dec. 8 was against the Empire of Japan only. The argument would have been made loud and long that one enemy was enough, no need to take on Germany if we didn't have to. That argument would have had lots of traction. Hitler took that off the table on Dec. 11 with his declaration of war. Only then did the US respond in kind.

Agreed. Goose, what’s your take on why Hitler declared war on the US? Aside from invading the Soviet Union, it’s always seemed to me as if that was the stupidest thing Hitler did during WWII.

Interestingly, this topic has become somewhat "current" again. The Axis treaty required the other nations to declare war on the opponent if any Axis power was attacked. Japan was not attacked by the US, so Italy and Germany were not "legally" bound to declare war on the US. The "rational" explanation of Hitler's action is as follows:

Hitler intended to invade Russia within the next six months or so. It would be very useful to him if Japan would then declare war against Russia, because it would have forced Russia to at least retain, if not utilize, significant forces in the far east. This would be true even if Japan wasn't real "active" in it's war against Russia. Obviously, the more pressure they put on Russia, the better. Hitler hoped that his declaration against the US would create a moral obligation for Japan to do the same. Hitler knew Japan was reluctant to antagonize Russia. Their recent ass-kicking by the Russians made them a bit "gun shy". They had a non-aggression pact with them (as did Germany) and wanted to keep it that way. Hitler couldn't openly share his plans with Japan, but he knew they were leaning away from a conflict with Russia. He wanted to change that. His attempt failed.

The other possibility is that Hitler was just an insane, irrational dictator and got carried away with his power trip. He also had little regard for the military potential of the US. On top of that, he was mad at the US for our openly one-sided support of the UK, including convoy escort to the mid-Atlantic. These emotional factors may have pushed him "over the top".

[dabigv13]

Interesting developments in Ukraine Air Defense over past couple days. Yesterday they shot down a Ukrainian TB2 Bayraktar, when it supposedly was out of control. And then today, they for the first time intercepted a ballistic Kinzhal missile, likely with Patriot.

Meanwhile Prigozhin is saying Wagner will leave Bakhmut on May 10 because they are not getting enough artillery ammo. Russia is evacuating frontline towns in Ukrainian territory they control. Reportedly there has been increase counter battery tempo recently in Bakhmut.

The offensive may have begun.

[dabigv13]

Interesting developments in Ukraine Air Defense over past couple days. Yesterday they shot down a Ukrainian TB2 Bayraktar, when it supposedly was out of control. And then today, they for the first time intercepted a ballistic Kinzhal missile, likely with Patriot.

Meanwhile Prigozhin is saying Wagner will leave Bakhmut on May 10 because they are not getting enough artillery ammo. Russia is evacuating frontline towns in Ukrainian territory they control. Reportedly there has been increase counter battery tempo recently in Bakhmut.

The offensive may have begun.

[Goose]

Interesting developments in Ukraine Air Defense over past couple days. Yesterday they shot down a Ukrainian TB2 Bayraktar, when it supposedly was out of control. And then today, they for the first time intercepted a ballistic Kinzhal missile, likely with Patriot.

It could be they intercepted it with a Patriot, but the pictures they are showing of the putative Kinzhal missile do not look at all like what a Patriot "hit" should produce. A PAC-3 "hit to kill" impact is designed to totally obliterate the target. Moving as fast as a Kinzhal supposedly does the kinetic energy alone should reduce it to rubble in a collision. A hit from a PAC-2 munition fragment will generally cause the target to (at a minimum) tumble, and the aerodynamic forces are sufficient to destroy it's structural integrity. The problem with the PAC-2 is that the warhead may survive and hit something, although not it's intended target. Yet the pictures they show are of a relatively intact missile with a hole in it. Hard to imagine how that is possible. Looks more like some kind of malfunction. Indeed curious.

Meanwhile Prigozhin is saying Wagner will leave Bakhmut on May 10 because they are not getting enough artillery ammo. Russia is evacuating frontline towns in Ukrainian territory they control.

Indeed curious. Russia has been building defensive positions quite far behind the current lines. Retreating before Ukraine actually applies pressure seems foolish, as you are giving them their "day 1" objectives for free. Hard to figure what they are thinking.

Reportedly there has been increase counter battery tempo recently in Bakhmut.

The offensive may have begun.

Yes, it may, or possibly the Russians fear it so much they are preempting the Ukrainians by retreating in order to minimize casualties. Kind of crazy, and more than a bit unusual. Why retreat in the Donbas, where Russia is actually doing better than elsewhere? Do they know something we don't? (The classic thing that keeps the opposing force commander awake at night :-). The weather isn't yet great in Ukraine and there is still quite a bit of mud, but that situation is changing rapidly.

[Goose]

Interesting developments in Ukraine Air Defense over past couple days. Yesterday they shot down a Ukrainian TB2 Bayraktar, when it supposedly was out of control. And then today, they for the first time intercepted a ballistic Kinzhal missile, likely with Patriot.

It could be they intercepted it with a Patriot, but the pictures they are showing of the putative Kinzhal missile do not look at all like what a Patriot "hit" should produce. A PAC-3 "hit to kill" impact is designed to totally obliterate the target. Moving as fast as a Kinzhal supposedly does the kinetic energy alone should reduce it to rubble in a collision. A hit from a PAC-2 munition fragment will generally cause the target to (at a minimum) tumble, and the aerodynamic forces are sufficient to destroy it's structural integrity. The problem with the PAC-2 is that the warhead may survive and hit something, although not it's intended target. Yet the pictures they show are of a relatively intact missile with a hole in it. Hard to imagine how that is possible. Looks more like some kind of malfunction. Indeed curious.

Meanwhile Prigozhin is saying Wagner will leave Bakhmut on May 10 because they are not getting enough artillery ammo. Russia is evacuating frontline towns in Ukrainian territory they control.

Indeed curious. Russia has been building defensive positions quite far behind the current lines. Retreating before Ukraine actually applies pressure seems foolish, as you are giving them their "day 1" objectives for free. Hard to figure what they are thinking.

Reportedly there has been increase counter battery tempo recently in Bakhmut.

The offensive may have begun.

Yes, it may, or possibly the Russians fear it so much they are preempting the Ukrainians by retreating in order to minimize casualties. Kind of crazy, and more than a bit unusual. Why retreat in the Donbas, where Russia is actually doing better than elsewhere? Do they know something we don't? (The classic thing that keeps the opposing force commander awake at night :-). The weather isn't yet great in Ukraine and there is still quite a bit of mud, but that situation is changing rapidly.

[dabigv13]

I don't know that there is a retreat per se. Prigozhin claims that regular Russian military will take over their positions in Bakhmut while they "lick their wounds" and the towns being evacuated are civilian evacuations. But definitely the Russians are getting ready.

[dabigv13]

I don't know that there is a retreat per se. Prigozhin claims that regular Russian military will take over their positions in Bakhmut while they "lick their wounds" and the towns being evacuated are civilian evacuations. But definitely the Russians are getting ready.