Ukraine War. 2022-

Why's that High Wood?

Hugh Ward effectively confirmed it with a non-denial which would infer the documents would be genuine.

“I’m going to have a chat with Chris [Donnelly] and confirm with him what he’s prepared for me to release,” Ward told The Grayzone, when asked directly if he drafted the “audacious” plan.

Asked again to confirm his role in the blueprint, Ward paused, then said: “I can not confirm that. I’ll have a chat with Chris first.”

 

"Ward told The Grayzone": we are supposed to take The Grayzone's word that he actually said that to them, and that is precisely the problem: The Grayzone have zero credibility given their past history and unconditional pro-Putin stance.

In any case, the whole matter is irrelevant as the actual attack clearly did not follow the recommendations of the alleged documents: it did not strike the "weak points" nor the pillars.

I for one would appreciate if we would stop quoting such idiotic sources as The Grayzone. After all, we are a history forum, so a minimum of fact/source checking would be nice. "I've read it on the Internet" just doesn't cut it.

Michel

 

Michel,

Your dictating what we post on WW2talk is counter to what we do on this forum, we ask, discuss and try not to reduce oneself to hissy fits.

As a history forum, we use a variety of sources, after all even penthouse and playboy had investigative journalism.

If you don't like the information, tough, there is no reason to get your knickers in a twist.

Posted it as thought it would be of interest to most, as Kerch bridge was targetted, then you have documents, purported to be put together by Hugh Ward for Christopher Donnelly, which surface.

Ward gives a non denial; just the very nature of that one would have thought they were genuine added with emails.

You should not fear information it is their to be digested and assessed but your gate keeping what members post is concerning.

 

No one is gate keeping what you post, no one is having a hissy fit and no one has their knickers in a twist. If you have so little self control that you need to resort to abuse when responding I would respectfully suggest that you get yourself a Twitter account.

 

High Wood,

I was replying to Michel's post.

Don't know why you even felt the need to reply?

Put a post up, you, von poop & Michel made comment on the source but nothing on the contents of Kit Klarenburg's article; was hoping for indepth look from other members.

When Michel condecends "...idiotic sources as The Grayzone. After all, we are a history forum, so a minimum of fact/source checking would be nice. "I've read it on the Internet" just doesn't cut it." that is effectively telling other members what sources should be used, that is stating what can be posted and from where.

Is "hissy fit" or "knickers in a twist" abuse?

 

We all post sources for a balanced view.We all have different opinions and thoughts on those sources.
Some members access the post source ,others dont.
If we have an interest in the source we should read it, comment on its content and possibly add other sources for interest or balance.
That is what makes the forum work.

 

Drones (UAV) are currently very present in the Russo-Ukrainian war.
Ukraine in particular is a major player in the field of class I UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles = drones).
Unmanned Air Vehicle (UAV)
and is now undoubtedly one of THE experts. (Alongside the IDF, of course)

The Ukrainian semi-civilian organisation Aerorozvidka has been experimenting with such devices since 2014 and has achieved a high level of expertise, especially in the use of the homegrown R-18:

R-18: Aerorozvidka NGO [aerial reconnaissance]

I see interesting parallels between the Class I UAVs and aviation in WWI: At first, the aircraft of the time were regarded at best as suitable for reconnaissance.
Then it was discovered that dropping bombs was an excellent addition to existing means of destruction.
This eventually led to the use of aircraft specifically for intercepting enemy aircraft.

Long story short:
In this respect, interesting developments are underway with regard to airborne CUAS (Counter Unmanned Aerial System)
Particularly worth mentioning to me are the Fortem DroneHunters, some of which are already said to be in active service in Ukraine:

DroneHunter® F700

I boldly predict that airborne drones will have a similar impact on future warfare as the early days of aviation in 1914.
(And in combination with the advanced AI experiments I sense strong "Skynet" vibes)

 

Self-explanatory article by non-military academic experts: Crimean Bridge blast: experts assess the damage

Their concluding remarks:

 

I don't know the first thing about architecture, statics or bridge building.
But even as a simple village blacksmith, I know with absolute certainty that the quality of steel definitely does not increase with strong heating.
Concrete subjected to high thermal loads is not likely to improve either. (I know from my own long experience the not so particularly beneficial effects on clay, loam, fireclay, brick, Ytong and the like....).
If Iwan continues to use the bridge heavily in its current state, he is likely to experience a Remagen 2.0 in the foreseeable future

 

An unusually detailed report on the Kherson salient, with a suitable title:A river too far: Bridges in Kherson Oblast » Wavell Room

 

Adam
I've seen that video earlier today and the bit I find puzzling is that the drone from which we 'see' the action appears to be maintaining its position and making no attempt to manoeuvre or otherwise evade the 'attacking drone'.

 

...but who would want to be a Tankie especially with those 'high rising' turrets.

 

Drones will change war, probably even revolutionise it - but certainly not prevent it
Fun Fact: At the 2nd Lateran Council in 1139, the use of the crossbow was banned (only use against non-Christians was allowed)
We all know how well that worked out....

It is the eternal battle of "sword vs shield". What hasn't our species invented since the dawn of time to move its kind from life to death?
Whenever a new "revolutionary" system appears, it is first "overwhelming" - until someone develops a suitable countermeasure

Ultimately and finally, this cycle always reduces to the same equation thereafter:
War is a condition in which people kill each other who do not know each other, on the orders of people who do know each other, but do not kill each other.

 

Apologies for slight digression from thread topic but:
1. Uncle George (Infantry/Royal Artillery) said there would be no way they would get him into a tank - described tanks as 'mobile coffins' - and he felt sorry for Dad (amazing because Uncle George was a POW courtesy of the Japanese so that's quite a benchmark), while:
2. Dad was a Tankie (24th Lancers then 3rd Royal Tank Regiment) who said there was no way he would want to be a member of the PBI (Poor Bloody Infantry) outside the protection of a tank and, in any case, he wanted to 'ride to Berlin rather than walk'.

'Naught so queer as folk' as they say oop North.

 

My dad, who always said that nothing would have got him in a submarine, volunteered for the army as the alternative might have been conscription down the pit as a Bevin Boy. In the end, his ATC morse training (the RAF turned him down for flying duties on medical grounds) got him quite a tolerable campaign on Advanced Landing Grounds as Air Formation Signals.