/k/ - Weapons, Combat, Outdoorsmanship

wepon

SAVE THIS FILE: Anon.cafe Fallback File v1.0 (updated 2021-01-10)

Want your event posted here? Requests accepted in this /meta/ thread.

Max message length: 5120

Drag files to upload or
click here to select them

Maximum 5 files / Maximum size: 20.00 MB

Board Rules
More

(used to delete files and postings)


what's a war board without a conflict?


Russia vs Ukraine Strelok 04/02/2021 (Fri) 15:11:32 No.14576
Things seem to be heating up and I think this deserves its own discussion thread. Or at least I think it will soon. https://archive.is/bpADR https://archive.is/gA8ee How big do you think this will get? Will it spill over into Europe? Will Biden do something retarded that makes things worse?
>>16676 >pic Looks cute, a big sub with its little friend subs.
>>16676 Why hasn't anyone created buzz droids water drones to make submarines obsolete the way giant battleships have become? I imagine a water drone equipped with self-attaching legs and an impact tool to drive holes into a submarine's hull/cut off segments would be fairly cheap to design.
>>16683 Sea is sort of a big place and it's already pain in the ass to find subs. And if you can find sub you can just shoot a torpedo at it and be done with it.
>>16683 >obsolete the way giant battleships have become Cute. We have a naval thread that is highly willing to call you on that. Because giant battleships only became 'obsolete' due to 1) Politics and Luck. After Crossroads the US Navy literally made a coin-flip to decide whether to pressure congress for new CVs or BBs, because they realized they'd only get one of them funded. If the US maintained BBs, everyone else would have tried to. Vanguard and Jean Bart were only scrapped after the US removed all but four of their fleet. and 2) More Politics and people completely forgetting the core mission of navies. Within the last 20 years, the US Navy has admitted the only reason that they still don't have fleets of battleships in service is because they're too scary and 'conflict with the Navy's humanitarian mission'.
>>16694 Or maybe being a giant hulking target is a bad idea when defensive technology lags about two generations behind offensive technology and has since about the Great War.
>>16695 That's a retarded argument. It is not that Defensive Technology has lagged behind Weapons Technology, it is that the Aggressor has the advantage in choosing the time and place of engagement. That has nothing to do with technology at all and everything to due with the nature of warfare. The result is that the defender has to spread their focus thin over wide areas while the attacker gets to focus their attack on the weakest link. When both sides get to put their best show in the same location, offensive systems and defensive systems have consistently shown themselves to be roughly equivalent with a very slight edge to the offensive system due primarily to the cheaper nature of prototyping munitions. This is, of course, no longer true, given the advent of high-energy lasers, particle cannons (MARAUDER), Railgun CIWS (CCEGL), and super-alloys such as Nanoplate which can according to simulations shrug off even nuclear blasts in armor-grade thicknesses. Even in WW2, means existed to completely shut down attacks on fleets by aircraft. The 'Great Light Project', just to name one American 'AA' system from 1939, was the Canal Defense Lights on steroids: giant shipborne focused-searchlights functioning as proto-lasers meant to burn out pilots' eyes. The US Navy balked at the concept in the end and threw it out as inhumane after animal testing proved it to be extremely effective beyond their expectations (they were expecting deterrent, not lethality). But this isn't the right thread for this.
>>16696 >This is, of course, no longer true, given the advent of high-energy lasers, particle cannons (MARAUDER), Railgun CIWS (CCEGL), and super-alloys such as Nanoplate which can according to simulations shrug off even nuclear blasts in armor-grade thicknesses. God damn it, when are we going to see a clash on the high seas between major naval forces again?
>>16606 >>16615 >>16669 >Classified Ministry of Defence documents containing details about HMS Defender and the British military have been found at a bus stop in Kent. >The documents relating to the Royal Navy's Type 45 destroyer, HMS Defender, show that a mission described by the MoD as an "innocent passage through Ukrainian territorial waters", with guns covered and the ship's helicopter stowed in its hangar, was conducted in the expectation that Russia might respond aggressively. Fucking Bongs lmao. To be fair to the RN, the ship technically had the right to go there regardless of whether those are considered Russian or Ukrainian waters, since the Law of the Sea allows for "innocent passage" and the ship actually was trying to get from point A to point B across the Black Sea. That kind of mission is far from new or exclusive to the Bongs. And either route, whether going out of their way to avoid waters they still officially call Ukrainian or passing through them like they did, would have risked looking bad, since one looks weak and the other looks provocative. I can understand why they took the route that potentially made them look less impotent. The response and the denials afterwards >>16615 are retarded though.
>>16767 Forgot archive link
>>16768 What the fuck? It stripped the link from my post. I pasted it into the reply box, saw it appear, and then the post auto-submitted without including the link. What the hell is this site playing at? https://archive.is/67GTT
>>16767 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Navy#Future >In October 2020 Ukraine and the United Kingdom signed a memorandum in which the UK government pledged to provide a 10-year loan of up to £1.25 billion ($1.6 billion) for the re-equipment of the Ukrainian Navy.[67] In June 2021, during a visit by HMS Defender to Odessa, it was revealed that an agreement had been reached for two Sandown class minehunters to be transferred to the Ukrainian Navy upon decommissioning from the Royal Navy.
>>16696 We have nuke proof armor now?
>>16781 Only on the lower half of nuclear weapon yields, say common tactical warheads. A strategic nuke is still going through it, and even the tactical warheads will cause significant damage. Theoretically, you could stack enough of the armor to defeat even a Tsar Bomba, but at the thicknesses involved you'd be bankrupting multiple nations to afford it. And before you get your hopes up about tactical-nuke-proof tanks, the armor is cost prohibitive in anything less than already multi-billion dollar installations.
>>16801 >And before you get your hopes up about tactical-nuke-proof tanks, the armor is cost prohibitive in anything less than already multi-billion dollar installations. No it's not. They just use a mixture of tungsten and depleted uranium for the base plating among several other "confidential" materials and you're unlikely to get ahold of Uranium Hexaflouride if you don't own nuclear facilities because it's a heavily controlled substance internationally. The armor made is far from anything expensive and doesn't provide nearly the level of protection Strelok thinks it does when you consider the weight drawbacks and the fact that goat piss bombs regularly decommission tanks using such armor. The mass and density of said armor also makes it unfloatable so don't use it as an example of ship armor to justify an unrelated argument.
>>16804 You have a reading comprehension of exactly zero, Strelok. What you described is in absolutely no way Nanoplate, which was specifically mentioned by name. Nanoplate is based around Carbon Nanotubes as the primary 'armor', thus the name 'nanoplate', with steel or titanium layers providing structural strength, which is why it's (technically incorrectly) referred to as an alloy. It is not a Tu-DeU Composite as seen in the Abrams and, frankly, you have to be lower than nigger-tier retarded to even think such was being referred to.
>>16805 It's not that I have poor reading comprehension, it's just from skimming Strelok was describing Abrams tank armor and acting like it's somehow impervious when farmers learned to get around it with goat piss bombs over a decade ago. If we're talking about Nanoplate, I would ask you to actually specify which one because it sounds like you're describing Graphene Oxide which is easily produced at an industrial scale if you build the initial infrastructure which runs for a few million dollars, well within the financial ranges of most of the world militaries. If that is what you mean by "Nanoplate" then the Chinese figured out how to produce 3D structures affordably a couple years ago and published the process. It's good for deflecting energy (heat, photons, electricity, etc.) and can make fibers 50% stronger when incorporated, but it's only some miracle compound in your vidya. If you aren't talking about graphene oxide, then please specify what you mean by "nanoplate" and I would be more than willing to rip you a new one for responding like a nigger to try to make me back down.
Open file (806.59 KB 770x513 ClipboardImage.png)
US poking the bear. NATO going through joint exercises with Ukraine near Crimea. Russia has told them to stay in international waters. https://archive.is/xtLeV
>>16809 >it's just from skimming Strelok was describing Abrams tank armor So, you admit you have zero reading comprehension. Try actually following the reply chain next time if you think your very important point is worth mentioning at all so you can actually have context. The primary topic was naval armor, not tank armor. Strelok was just saying that it was not cost effective to put on tanks trying to preempt an obvious association some people want to have by throwing any armor development on tanks while trying to make bolos. I will repeat: frankly, you have to be lower than nigger-tier retarded to even think such (Abrams Armor) was being referred to. >because it sounds like you're describing Graphene Oxide No, Strelok, I was clearly talking about Carbon Nanotubes, which are not Graphene Oxide. I literally just described what the Nanoplate I was referring to was, but you - like a nigger - refused to read what was written.
>>16813 Carbon nanotubes are graphene oxide.
>>16814 Graphine Oxide is a compound of carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen. It is possible to make Graphine Oxide by 'cutting open' or 'unzipping' Carbon Nanotubes and in the process reintroducing other elements, and you can use Graphine Oxide in the process of manufacturing Carbon Nanotubes, but one is not the other.
Open file (121.87 KB 700x500 ClipboardImage.png)
Open file (492.34 KB 700x394 ClipboardImage.png)
https://archive.is/eeQhy Russia playing games with European gas supply in lieu of Germany's September elections. Promising to deliver more gas once Nordstream is fully functional and secured. Ukraine is screeching like a harpy because they've been buying Russian gas on credit for the last 20 years and haven't even had the decency to make payments on the debts they've owed. Now that Russia can go around them, Gazprom is showing they're sick and tired of Ukraine's bullshit. Obviously there's a political element but this was bound to happen even without politics.
>>16851 Ukraine has not even bought gas for the last few years, but outright stolen it. They've siphoned off the gas meant for Europe, which went through their country, which in turn sparked the whole Nordstream 2 thing. Hohols are biting the hand that feeds them, and scream murder when said hand stops giving them food. As I see it, Ukraine is a bad, aggressive, untrained and stupid dog. And what do you do with those kinds of dogs? Exactly, you take them out in the backyard and shot them.
>>16854 Guess they have to go back to being a whorehouse and Stalker tourist site.
>>16855 They never stopped being a whorehouse. That is one of the things the rebels did was go after that shit. Turns out drug dealers in that part of the world also traffic people too.
>>16854 Why would Ukraine pay niggers who stole their clay?
>>16886 Ukraine can go suck start a 12giggity. They better be happy that Russia was actually considerate and only took back territory that was inherently russian, instead of eating great and glorious ukraina, with bones and hair, and forcing them to work for their gas, because they certainly could. Ukraine is a scumsucker country full of people who are oh so powerful and heroic and stronk, but as soon as they need to heat their homes, they start stealing gas. Crimea is russian clay, and Ukrainians are dirtbags who went to long without a good crisis that would've shown them to be more humble. (And America should pull their dick out of eastern Europe, before it gets chopped off)
>>16888 The US is an old man on Viagra that hasn't got off in decades.
Open file (230.59 KB 749x469 1612972255111.jpg)
>>16886 Because those "niggers" are the ones who drilled it out of the ground, refined it into a usable product, built the infrastructure to transport it in exchange for a fee on the transportation method, and stuck it on the market. Ukraine is the trucker deciding the cargo he's delivering for his company suddenly belongs to him rather than the customer he's contracted to deliver it to, and taking it for himself. Then he screeches like a banshee when the company fires him and hires a different trucker to get the job done. They don't get to have Russian gas without paying for it just as they don't get to have Russian privileges while shitting where they eat. They can figure it out themselves.
>>16890 Still, the old man sticks his dick where one shouldn't even stick his hand. America fucks around in hopes of getting coin out of it, and that's gonna bite em in the ass. I actually hope that a full blown war breaks out, because even in Russia (yes, fucking Russia, the country that beats troons into submission) has accumulated a large amount of trannies and faggots, even in influential positions, because it's become infested with materialism, and the oldfags haven't managed to teach the new generation that money isn't everything, hell even some of the oldtimers have forgotten that fact. Russia needs that war just as much as America, only for different reasons.
Open file (264.14 KB 1076x1213 Putinpill.jpg)
>>16892 Judging from the British Ministry of Defense response to the destroyer incident, the West would rather pussyfoot around because it knows it's too fragile to last a war but has enough boldness to pull pointless gotchas that don't do anything but make nice headlines. Likewise Russia doesn't want to be seen initiating hostilities without a justified reason and so takes it up the ass when shit happens like Turkey shooting down a jet or Armenia being overrun by Azerbaijian, while at Putin's age despite his permanent presidency he has to prepare for retirement with no one to replace him.
>>16893 That's the worst thing about this all.based Putin is someone who can lead Russia successfully, and if he dies before a war breaks out, the probability is high that he gets replaced by a decadent, corrupt, western dick sucking opticsfag, that will surely sell out Russia to the bone. I can only hope that some trip up or a mistake let's all hell break loose and gives Russia a good reason to grind the bongs and the yanks into fertilizer, and plow Europe's ass for taking part in those provocations. Because that's what they do, they're poking the bear, hoping it will make him roar so they can point at him and scream about "muh Russia bad aggressor, special hero league unite!" Everyone just wants to exploit Russia like they exploit Africa, because Africa is slowly gaining confidence, so they need another assboy that they can use as a cumdump and cheap export country for natural resources.
Open file (117.25 KB 850x927 Bitch.jpg)
>>16894 >the probability is high that he gets replaced by a decadent, corrupt, western dick sucking opticsfag Probably a Russian oligarch. Putin is not based, he's just realistic. Russia has its own problems and the grass is not greener. It's just in clown world, being realistic makes you a villain on the international stage, and he's stepped up to the plate when needed.
>>16899 Thanks for correcting, sometimes I pick the wrong words for the right things. Of course a Russian oligarch is the most probable choice, as they hold a lot of power, and a lot of their money and goods are bound offshore, so they are a big target for foreign governments, who will try to use them for gaining influence in Russia. It's a game of slowly poisoning Russia from inside, filling it with decadence and materialism, while poking it from the outside, hopefully to make it burst. And this is what I fear: that this game of patience will actually work, and Russia will slowly collapse like the Soviet Union before it. And I'm not sure if there will be another realist to pull the country out of the shit, up to its feet again. Maybe that will be the end of Russia. But I have hope that even with Russia collapsing, mother nature will find a way to make things right, and turn the worthless pieces of transmeat and all the disgusting products of modern civilization back into useful compost, to let mankind grow strong again. Wasn't there a Vidya game song about this? "..and new life be born beneath the rusted sand.."?
Open file (38.96 KB 620x775 Raiden.jpg)
>>16900 https://yewtu.be/watch?v=2l0RMGid6vo The world has turned, and so many have burned But nobody is to blame Yet staring across this barren, wasted land I feel new life will be born Beneath the bloodstained sands!
>>16902 BENEATH THE BLOODSTAINED SAAAAAAAAAANDS!!! yeah that's the one, thank you anon :^)
Open file (1.59 MB 1024x576 ClipboardImage.png)
Open file (1013.09 KB 808x539 ClipboardImage.png)
Open file (551.78 KB 600x360 ClipboardImage.png)
Open file (516.36 KB 600x360 ClipboardImage.png)
Ukrainian soldiers made to march in high heels during military parade https://archive.is/SF9JZ >Ukraine's defence ministry caused outrage on Friday after it published pictures of female soldiers rehearsing for an upcoming military parade wearing high heels. >In the pictures, the female students of a military college are seen wearing military fatigues and black heeled shoes, which even the cadets themselves admit are impractical. >"Today we are training in high heels for the first time. It is a little more difficult than in combat boots but we are doing our best," Ivanna Medvid told ArmiaInform, the news agency of the ministry. >The images sparked anger online in Ukraine and protests in the country' parliament, >One lawmaker, Inna Souvsoun, said the initiative was "a stupid idea" that embodied "stereotypes on the role of the woman as a pretty doll". >Olena Kondratiouk, deputy speaker of parliament, asked the authorities to apologise publicly for humiliating women who "defend the independence of Ukraine with arms in hand". >Over 30,000 women serve in Ukraine's armed forces, including more than 4,100 officers. More than 13,500 Ukrainian women have fought against pro-Russian separatists in the east of the country since the outbreak of the deadly armed conflict seven years ago. >Earlier this year, a number of Ukrainian female soldiers spoke to Euronews about the difficulties of serving in a male-dominated military, including sexism and misogyny, but also sexual assault. >"There are things that women cannot so easily be allowed to do, like being on the frontline. Not all women are allowed to go there because a lot of men do not like it," one solider, Anastasia, said. >Hanna Hrytsenko, an independent researcher and part of the Invisible Battalion project in Ukraine, which researches women’s role in the military, said that traditional gender roles still exist.” >"People are accustomed to a certain life and don’t see that it needs to change," she said. >Several Ukrainian lawmakers close to Ukraine’s former president Petro Poroshenko showed up in parliament with pairs of shoes and encouraged the defence minister to wear high heels to the parade.
>>16921 If you look closely to the images, you'll notice that they are also women.
>>16891 Would you pay for a bicycle to a nigger who stole your car? Personally i'd just assume that anything that belongs to that nigger is mine for the taking as long as the value of the stuff that i take back doesn't exceed the value of the car that nigger stole from me.
>>16923 Russia didn't steal Crimea. Crimea returned to Russia on it's own. The question about who Crimea belongs to is about 30-40 years old, ever since pro-russian voices grew loud, towards the end of the Soviet era, when repression weakened. The decree of the 19. February 1954, by which the autonomous Crimean SSR was simply connected to the Ukrainian SSR, "on basis of close economical, and cultural ties, and because of geographical proximity", was criticized by the Crimean people since the 1980s, as it was ordered against their will and without their partaking in the decision. I would even accept Crimean independence from both Ukraine and Russia, and anyone else, as long as it's their decision. But as it stands, the Crimean people decided in a referendum, that they want to be a part of the russian federation. And Ukraine wants to have a stranglehold on Crimea, as it allows them to earn shittons of money on tourism without having to do shit, and most importantly, to blackmail Russia using Sewastopol, an important black sea port, used by the russian fleet.
>>16923 >>16927 The territorial dispute is just the result of a series of bad decisions: >Ukraine originally part of the Kievian Rus(sians), they were destroyed by the Mongol hordes >after the decline of the Mongols, nomadic cossack tribes take over the region >Polish expansion and conflict with Russia eventually led to incorporation of the cossack territories into the Russian Empire >Russians develop Sevastopol in Crimea to be their principal naval port on the Black Sea >the Russians fought a war, aptly named the Crimean War with Britain and France (who wanted to prop up the Ottomans to preserve le balance of power because merchants profited off of playing geopolitical tensions) in the 1850s within the region >fast forward to 1917, Bolshevik communists take over and want to accelerate their collective agriculture program >Ukraine had been developed into a breadbasket by this point >Stalin opts to rob the place and also deports the Ukrainian population of Crimea to settle it with Russians and incorporate it into Soviet Russia in the 1930s (it doesn't seem clear if he had a particular reason for doing this, what was written about it mostly appears to accuse him of a pathological dislike of Ukrainians with some hinting at it being revenge for costing him a significant triumph in the Russian Civil War. Keep in mind though, Stalin wasn't even an ethnic Russian - he was a Georgian - when Ukrainians use this to exemplify some eternal Russia hatred against them) >in 1954 Khrushchev wanting to dispose of Stalin's influence following his death as well as having Ukrainian heritage decides to return Crimea to Soviet Ukraine, which is fine strategically as long as both Russia and Ukraine are part of the Soviet Union >in the 1990s the USSR falls and Ukraine in a shock referendum result decides to pursue independence from Russia as a whole >post-Soviet Ukraine has similar problems to the rest of Eastern Europe but started doing alright in the lead up the global financial crisis of 2008 >however they are run by massively corrupt oligarchs who pumped up the economy on a debt bubble in the economic high of the early 2000s > that blows up with 2008, and Ukraine is effectively bankrupt, with the debt primarily owed to Russia >Ukrainian politicians start making appeals to the West to rescue them from Russian "oppression" >shit happens Feel free to point out where this was wrong.
>>16933 I cannot currently find anything wrong with this post. Still, I stand by my point that Crimea is russian. It has formally been a part of the Russian empire since 1783. And I still stand by the point, that Ukrainians should not expect anything nice from Russia, as they have not done anything to deserve it.
>>16933 Crimea was a Tatar Khanate before Slavs appeared there in significant numbers. Before that it was inhabited by Goths. Before even that there was a Greek Kingdom in that island. Before that it most likely had some Scythians or other horse nomad population living there. So I propose to have a deathmatch between all the various peoples who descended from nomadic Eurasian tribes, and the winner should take over Crimea.
>>16936 So, the same thing we did all the time before? I can accept that.
>>16936 >Before that it was inhabited by Goths You mean the Venetians?
>>16983 By Venetians do you mean the Goths? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_Goths
Open file (505.14 KB 1920x1005 1920px-Genoese_Holdings.jpg)
Open file (220.33 KB 1500x1056 Soldaia Fortress.jpg)
>>16985 I didn't know the goths had such a presence there, interesting and nice to know, but i meant italians and my bad, i confused Venetian merchant enclaves with the Genovese Republic who had control of the area for a century or so before turkroaches zergrushed the place. Knew about that while reading about Cerco's architecture, or Kerch as known nowadays. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazaria_(Genoese_colonies)
Ukraine giving the British ship commander a medal: https://archive.is/iriGO

Report/Delete/Moderation Forms
Delete
Report

no cookies?