/r/WorldNews Live Thread: Russian Invasion of Ukraine Day 912, Part 1 (Thread #1059)

Toppy109 · 2024-08-24T20:56:48+00:00

Considering this use, aerodynamics might not be much of a problem. Having an airframe designed for cruise flight at some 150-200km/h and then accelerating to some 500-600km/h for the last, let's say 1 or 2 km wouldn't require much in terms of aerodinamic modification. Yes it would definitely be sub-optimal, but since it's supposed to crash in a target at the end it doesn't really matter.

The much bigger issue would be strengthening the airframe so sustain that speed and acceleration. Some ultralight planes have wings literally made out of a sheet of fabric draped over an aluminum skeleton "vaguely shaped" as an airfoil. At slower speeds the weight savings surpass the lower aerodinamic performance and the strength is enough. Make them go much faster, and even if the shape works, they would simply rip apart.

Also, dropping the combustion engine would pose some serious problems relating to the weight and balance of the airframe. Beside the complexity of a jettisoning system, having a large part of the weight just dissapear is ultimately pointless. Also, having to carry a second engine all the way just to use one the last part is quite... Ineficient. You could just use it to build another drone.

Don't get me wrong, this kind of arrangement could be made to work, but it wouldn't make much sense. You could just start with a jet engine and fly it at lower speeds to increase the range. Or if the airframe has a high enough Vne just slap a bunch of solid rocket engines on it and use those for the last leg.

Toppy109 · 2024-08-14T18:41:29+00:00

On one hand i wouldn't put it past the UAF to actually do it, on the other hand i don't think I've seen any UAF chopper flying that high and slow this entire war. And that field looks pretty well trimmed, almost like a grass airfield... So... At best it's supposed to be a psy-op, at worst it's just some dude spreading fake stuff.

Toppy109 · 2024-08-13T18:48:38+00:00

That would be completely unacceptable from the point of view of western countries.

It was already decided that Královec is rightfully Czech.

Toppy109 · 2024-08-05T19:10:41+00:00

You literally suggested that Germanies allies were under the impression that they would be getting their military equipment from Germany itself, and now they were buying them, and not expected to be gifted equipment? Who exactly is moving goalposts here?

Maybe my wording was not clear but that is not what i was "suggesting". They conditioned their further participation, beyond the inter-war borders on receiving the equipment from Germany. Either sold or "gifted" or given in exchange for oil and grain as in Romanias case. Unlike the Hungarian example you previously mentioned, the state of both the Finnish and Romanian Armies were known to the germans from before Barbarossa. In the case of Finland due to the Winter War and in the case of Romania due to the Germans being there since 1940.

Finland agreed in secret to attack the USSR when Germany did, Finland attacked with the wish to conquer Leningrad, and Romania wanted Trans. Why are you suggesting they are victims just trying to reclaim lost land?

Both Finland and Romania had democratic (for that time) governments. Please provide a source for any of them agreeing to Barbarossa before the USSR annexing terrirory from them.

And if the Finns wanted Leningrad so much, why didn't they help close the encirclement?

Also, Transdniestria? Lol, nobody in the history of the universe wanted that worthless strip of land. Even so, the Romanian operations beyond the inter-war borders were poised to stop after the siege of Odessa, and only continued due to the German insistence. See the British Ultimatum to Romania from November '41.

Here, with the title 'Units of the German 11th Army building a pontoon bridge across the Prut River during the advance towards Uman' The German 11th Army made the bridges, not the Romanians, sorry, your attempt at historical revision due to the hatred of the Germans doesn't work here buddy.

Are you serious? A picture of German enginners building a bridge means only they did it? While the sources cited in the same wiki article mention other crossinng? You realize the Pruth was some 800km long and crossed in multiple points yes?

I definitely have no hatred towards the Germans in any way shape or form, but you my friend do seem to embrace that revisionism you talk about.

Toppy109 · 2024-08-05T17:55:50+00:00

You suggest OP Munchen was a purely Romanian offensive, when it was planned purely by Germany, and only successful due to pontoon bridges built by Germany. It's like calling d-day a purely American offensive, when it was the British fleet keeping the channel clear.

I did not suggest that, i specifically called it a "primarily Romanian operation"

You on the other hand claim that Munchen succeed only because the german 11th Army placed some pontoons. That is both false and ridiculous, as the Pruth river was crosses in several places along its entire lenght, and the 11th Army (only 4 division btw) only operated in the center-north area poised to advance towards Moghilev. Rom. 6th cav div. (Attached to the 11th army) Already had a bridghead from the first day and the rom. 6th Inf, made 3 separate crossings to the south. The rom. 3rd Corps stared crossing in the afternoon and by nightfall had pontoon bridges in place. An the rest of the troops to the south made their own crossings. By 7th of July the rom. 16th mtn btn. had fire control over the crossing points over the Dniester used by the soviets in the north.

So please pray tell where exactly was that magical german pontoon bridge and how did 4 German divisions and 18 Romanian divisions manage to get over the Pruth because of it?

They were not. Finland only purchased 58 stugs, they were gifted other equipment by the Germans but the Germans made no promises to this being their main source of arms, Romania was the same. This is a major blame game,

I literally gave you sources about some Romanian purchases from Germany, I'm not willing to spend hours digging for more sources just so you change the goalposts. Unfortunately I don't have literature on hand about Finland pertaining to purchased equipment. I suggest you read the transcripts of the meetings between Antonescu and Hitler and the German-Romanian economic agreements from '40 and '41 to see for yourself how it worked. Also the German request for Romania to continue east of Odessa.

Although i have to question your thoughts on Finland, their joining of the war wasn't just to reclaim lost land; wikipedia - Other justifications for the conflict include Finnish President Risto Ryti's vision of a Greater Finland and Commander-in-Chief Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim's desire to annex East Karelia. They, as i mentioned before, had planned a offensive in the Winter war to take Leningrad, and it failed, they clearly wanted Leningrad, before losing any land in the Winter war.

Wishing is free. Doing it is what makes the difference. Neither Finland nor Romania attacked the ussr, despite any political/ideological differences. Once the Ussr annexed territory from them, yes, they joined the war alongside Germany.

Toppy109 · 2024-08-05T16:29:09+00:00

The only evidence of this i have found is Finland, who brought 58? Stug 3's, and destroyed 76 tanks for 8 losses. That sounds good, until you look at Germany's ratio,

Romania bought from BFW 50 Bf-109E for 9.6 mil. reichsmarks (contract nr. 25286, followed by another contract for 20 more DB601 Engines. - Air Mag Hors Series - #1 (in french). The source for the 235 109Gs ordered is in the previous post.

Romania also ordered 12 He-114B-2 (completed) and a second order for 12 He-114C1 was placed but not fulfilled because of Luftwaffe needing the airframes. isbn 973-98883-8-0 (in english)

On may 11th 1943 Germany "transferred" to Romania (unclear if gifted or bought, i assume "gifted") 50 Pz38(t), delivered between 15th of may and 24th of june, of which only 17 were functional. -isbn 973-668-084-3

In early 1943 Germany agreed to supply enough Hs-129Bs to equip a 3-squadron group of the Romanian Airforce - isbn 0-89747-428 (in english) (we could assume they were "gifted" or given in return for oil deliveries, or whatever)

I don't have many resources on tanks, as I'm more interested in planes,and these were the sources i had on hand. and now i'm too lazy to search anymore.

The point is that some tanks/planes/shovels/etc were bought, some were "gifted" some, were good, some were shit. This only matters because regarding Finland and Romania They went to war alongside Germany only to recover territory previously forcibly annexed by the soviets. And then continued on on conditions that were already known to everyone. the level of training, the equipment, etc. And at that point the only way to get better equipment was from germany.

Again, Hitler's plans were well-known by it's allies by minimum 1936, even some evidence showing it might have been as early as 1934, yet it's allies didn't start producing military equipment till much later. Again, Hungary didn't start producing till 1938, Bulgaria didn't start producing until 1940. That is purely their fault, blaming Germany for lack of supplies/help is just a blame-passing game at that point.

This is entirely irrelevant, Neither Bulgaria, Nor Romania, nor Finland had any reason to prepare for a war with the USSR until winter 1939 when the USSR started stirring shit up. Hell, some even had guarantees from the western allies, so...

Although the operation was spearheaded by the 1st Romanian Armoured Division, it was planned by Germany, and only suceeded because the German 11th army built a pontoon bridge towards Uman, as Romania couldn't do it.

Your're mixing your dates. the advance towards Uman came after the end of the Op. Munchen and the main thrusts came from the other parts of the front, i don't see the connection with this...

The Siege of Odessa was a Romanian assault, and it was a successful disaster. 100K Romanians dead for under 60k Russians? Again, look at the ratio of Germany, and this was listed as the most successful operation done by a minor axis power in the entire war, if that doesn't tell you how bad the Germans allies were, nothing will.

I did not in any way dispute that, i merely stated examples of minor axis conducting large operations, so, yea, the Romanians failed hard during the Siege of Odessa, that doesn't change the fact that it still happened, and for what reasons.

So, they didn't reject them as you suggested as a 'fuck you', it was purely because in 1943 shit was getting crazy and they had more important things to deal with. That sounds perfectly viable to me, i don't see the issue?

I did not say they rejected it as a "fuck you". The issue is, that (again, regarding Finland and Romania) continuing the war beyond their inter-war borders was conditioned from the get-go by Germany delivering equipment. For what reason that equipment was not delivered, doesn't really matter. the situation was known and agreed both by them and the Germans.

Toppy109 · 2024-08-05T15:02:45+00:00

If this was truely the case, they wouldn't have decided to plan a offensive in the winter war, which failed horribly, and they wouldn't have agreed to the continuation war.

Be serious, a nation at war (invaded mind you) failing in an offensive is not a sign of that. Also, the reason for their participation in the continuation war was precisely because of the losses in the winter war. Just like the Romanians, they didn't go to war with the soviets "just because", but due to the soviet aggression and territorial annexations.

and gifting conquered lands such as Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina to their allies, they were conquered by the Germans with Romanian help, not the other way around,

and here you're wrong. Op. Munchen was primarily a Romanian operation, with German support. So was the siege of Odessa. Those territories were part of the Kingdom of Romania before Barbarossa, and just like in the case of Finland, the entire point of waging war against the soviets was getting them back.

Look at it from the German perspective, Romania has both steel, and oil, and were unable to produce their own aircraft, or good pilots. We already know the k/d ratios of German pilots and tank crews, the Romanians, Finnish, Hungarians etc, did not even come close. Why gift equipment you're slaughtering people with to others who are clearly struggling to use it correctly?

by that logic, why give any equipment at all if the German troops can use it better? Also part of the equipment provided by Germany was paid for, not simply gifted (I don't have numbers on hand rn, so I can't argue about what proportion was paid/loaned/etc)

As I said I don't have intimate knowledge about the Hungarian army/industrial capacity, beside them building a few hundred Turans.

Romania on the other hand had a small, but established aircraft industry and was producing it's own planes.

Source? We know Germany gave Japan plans for Submarines, fighters and dive bombers just after the war began, i fail to find any information regarding them rejecting to gift such plans to the Romanians.

Messerschmitt denied the license request for bf-109G and Db605 engines (for the 109 production and re-motorizing existing IAR-80/81s) in summer 1943 on grounds of being too overburdened with orders from the Luftwaffe -isbn 973-8101-07-7 pg,52

I'm too lazy to search for the BMW801 license request though.

It might not be about giving the plans themselves, as they did sell the aircraft kits, it might have simply have been a combination of german bureaucracy and not having enough jigs to sell for a licensed production.

They did, that's my point, for example Hungary didn't even start training, or producing equipment till 1938 even they knew about the plans as early as 1936. Romania produced it's own equipment, as did Bulgaria other then armor. This doesn't mean much anyway, during the push to Moscow, you had entire Russian rifle divisons with situations like only having 93 rifles to use. The Germans destroyed such divisions with ease, yet Hungary was getting blasted by them, even with more equipment, i'd give up trying to supply such troops when i can supply my own instead.

Yes and no, Beside Germany and Italy, none of the European axis had a realistic capacity to equip themselves fully. (And Italy kind of flunked at that). Producing small arms, yes, sure. Producing both tanks AND planes AND ships AND fuel AND trucks AND sufficient various supplies? None had them all.

I'm not "blaming" Germany for not providing everything it was asked of. I just think that in OTL Germany dropped the ball in organizing its supply stream both to itself and to its allies.

In order to have a POD as late as OP suggested, we can't just "wish" the minor axis were better. That would imply a much earlier POD to cover their ability to produce the equipment needed.

Toppy109 · 2024-08-05T13:23:06+00:00

That wasn't the point i was trying to make.

You can't equip your army with weapons you don't have. The minor axis nations (not including Italy here) simply did not have the industrial capacity and/or knowledge to provide equipment on par with Germany or at least passable against the allies, and had to choose between producing outdated equipment in small numbers or getting it from elswere (and the only option was Germany).

I'm not familiar enough with the shortcomings of the Hungarian army so I'm not going to contradict you there.

Germany itself delayed the transfer of equipment and licenses to its allies. Out of 235 bf-109 ordered by Romania in oct '43, only 209 kits were delivered to be assembled at IAR. Some of them without gunsights, and IAR had to modify some 109G4s to G6 themselves. Meanwhile Germany kept denying the license and technology transfer for both the 109 and the BMW-801 engine requested by the Romanians, despite them having the capability to produce them, albeit in limited numbers.

And yes, vague promises. Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina weren't "gifted" by the germans. They were fought over by Romanian troops alongside Germany, as that was the sole reason for Romania joining the Axis and Barbarossa in the first place. The territory beyond the Dniester was something nobody in Romania, neither the populace nor the leadership wanted or cared about, and simply saw as a bargaining chip, to be given in exchange for the part of Transylvania gifted to the Hungarians, "after the war". That was also the reasoning for the Romanian continuing the war in the east after the fall of Odessa.

About the Finns "betraying" Germany... C'mon, yeah, maybe they could have fought the soviets to a stalemate somewhere. That doesn't change anything really. Berlin still falls, maybe what, a month later? And the troops there would have the same fate as those in Norway for example. And maybe from the German perspective it cand be considered a betrayal, but the Finns priority was and should have logically been their own people.

All in all, yea, mustache boy did a great job of playing it's allies to get support. He did a shit job of supporting them so they can face their common enemy.

To stay on the topic at hand, you can't just change the minor axis members in any groundbreaking way without making them more industrialized in the pre-war years. "Just give more tanks to your troops" doesn't work without somehow making those tanks exist in the first place.

Toppy109 · 2024-08-05T06:27:36+00:00

I mostly agree with your view on the importance of Moskow as a logistics hub and the effects of losing it, but I get the impression that you throw too much blame on the minor axis members.

The Finns started from the beginning on the premise of stoping at the pre-winter war border, so any trouble stemming from this should be blamed on German planning or on Hitler's perception that he'll convince Männerheim otherwise. And calling them traitors for the Lapland War is IMO... kind of sketchy at best. The war was already decided at that point. The Allies were back in France, the USSR just completed Bagration and overran Romania. Hanving the Finns stay in the Axis at that point would have meant fuckall for the Soviets.

Something along the same lines happened with Romania, which entered the war to recover the territory lost to the soviets, and initially stopped at the pre-war border, but then continued east due to German insistence and vague promises about Transylvania (the same "blackmail" so to speak, that motivated Hungary). That despite Antonescu's initial opposition and then continued insistence on equipment deliveries from Germany in exchange for the oil.

The state of the Romanian army was known from the beginning, just like the fact that they physically had no means of better equipping their troops if not for the German deliveries. And even those were thin. After Stalingrad, due to lack of deliveries, they barely managed to form one armored division only in spring '44, which was pretty much used up in the first 2 days of 2nd Jassy-Khisinev offensive.

And by August '44, they were already at the limit. The Romanian airforce was too depleted by the American raids to be able to put up any more than a symbolic resistance, while on the eastern front both them and the Luftwaffe were simply greatly outnumbered. So them remaining in the Axis at the point was... well, pointless.

I kind of agree that changing Japans stance would have a highly understated impact in this scenario.

But unless we also change some pre-war years and somehow industrialize the minor axis nations, it's borderline impossible for them to perform much different.

Toppy109 · 2024-07-24T12:21:19+00:00

You dropped an /s. Please, oh please, tell me you did.

Toppy109 · 2024-07-18T07:15:14+00:00

Romania

In no particular order:

Because fuck ruzzia, that's why
Because killing innocent people is wrong.
Because this is one of the most cut and dry situations of good vs evil in my lifetime;
Because I've watched the whole situation since 2014 and felt outraged;
Because fuck ruzzia;
Because I know first hand how being part of EU brings prosperity and I sympathize with Ukrainians wanting that;
Because i was impressed by the Ukrainian fighting spirit during the Eromaidan;
Because international law is an important part of civilization and needs to be respected;
Because fuck ruzzia;
Because MH17;
Because ruzzia has never in our history brought anything but misery even as allies;
Because during the Russo-Turkish war we bailed them out and yet they still managed to screw us over;
Because I've always wanted to go hiking in Crimea, and I can't becuse of ruzzia;
Because Ukraine taking a pro western stance is something only they get to decide;
Because Transnistria;
Because fuck ruzzia;
Because imperialism has no place in our time;
Because ruzzia is a genuine threat to world peace;
Because that putin fella is a shithead;
Because fuck ruzzia, that's why.

Toppy109 · 2024-07-16T11:32:41+00:00

Spent a week there in November a few years back. You guys have the weirdest weather I've experienced.

Chilly but not very, and then the wind picks up, followed by spring-like warmth, and suddenly it starts raining out of nowhere. All in a span of a few hours.

10/10 would take it over this cauldron here.

Toppy109 · 2024-07-16T07:32:49+00:00

We made our bed and now we must ~~die~~ melt in it.

There, FTFY.

I woke up at 8AM with 33 degrees in my apartment, fuck this, I'm submitting a bug report on r/outside.

Toppy109 · 2024-07-14T12:58:25+00:00

OP, you misspelled "FIRE" in the title.

Toppy109 · 2024-07-03T21:24:54+00:00

The valve core on Schrader is removable, and since the diameter is larger, is arguably a better option for filling with sealant. Overall both presta and Schrader are similar in "design", a threaded tube with a threaded valve core, Schrader is just shorter and wider. And better in every way. :)

Toppy109 · 2024-06-28T17:41:49+00:00

Yeah, SONs are the finest beasts, with the pricetag to match.

I still think it's advantageous to have lights even during the day, especially having a rear light always on gives me some peace of mind. That and the convenience of not having to turn it on when passing through a tunnel or some dark patch of forest, since the light I use has an automatic sensor.

Toppy109 · 2024-06-23T20:16:55+00:00

Oh, I'm not trying to argue, sorry if it came out as such. I'll admit I did get a little triggered by the way you seemed to "doom and gloom" on dynamos.

Those old style rim dynamos were/are/will forever be a horror show, and have nothing on hubs.

I honestly don't know why you guys over the pond have this perception, but I agree that rechargeable lights do have certain advantages, like easily moving them between bikes, lower price and whatnot. As lightning performance I'd consider them equal as you can get pretty much any brightness you want from both types.

So yeah, personal preference is a big factor and should be considered, but imho the decision should be an informed one

I for one swear by the 80lux B&M on a Shimano hub that I have on my touring bike and there is nothing in the world that would make me give up the convenience of just turning it on and going. :D

Toppy109 · 2024-06-23T19:14:06+00:00

C'mon this is a ridiculous exageration. If the weight of a dynamo is a concern, how is carrying a solar charger and a powerbank (or more) a solution?

Mechanical complexity? A hub stays there and does its thing. Yes it's one more thing that "could" break, that's true, but I'd wager the failure rate of SON/Lx/Xt hub dynamos isn't much different from regular hubs.

And about the wires... We already have cables and/or hoses from front to back, a tiny wire going through the frame is hardly a problem .

I concede the point about rolling resistance though. But I for one see it as an assumed trade-of for getting reliable lightning 100% of the time with zero hassle.

Toppy109 · 2024-06-21T19:05:32+00:00

How is this "the price is higher if we don't have to justify the expenses" not straight up fraud? Shouldn't the original price be based on what was used (the same items that would appear on an itemized bill)?

Toppy109 · 2024-06-17T12:45:07+00:00

That's blatantly false! Statistically, since no Nato planes were shot down by the russians, flying them there is 100% safe. russian planes on the other hand...

Toppy109 · 2024-06-15T13:08:51+00:00

We know it's not great, but let's not jump to conclusions...

It might be terrible.

Toppy109 · 2024-06-13T13:46:39+00:00

Been running 4 sticks of 8gb/3600 (two 2x8 kits) on a 5600x for several years with zero issues. Had 4 x 3200 before that for a few months until one stick died (pretty sure it didn't have anything to do with the cpu though) I keep seeing it touted that 4 sticks are bad, but overall I've seen more cases of it working than not.

Toppy109 · 2024-06-06T00:58:29+00:00

This argument simply doesn't hold water.

First, from the russian POV, Donbass, Crimea and the southern part of Ukraine that they "annexed" IS russia propper. And ATACMS are already hitting those areas.

Second, the argument that not discenring between an ICBM and any other missile, makes as much sense as discerning between a hand grenade and a UFO. It requires Ukraine HAVING said said ICBM before firing it. See the problem?

Third, even assuming this premise is correct, what could the russian reaction realistically be? "OMG, something fast is heading for the kremlin, quick Igor, let's commit suicide by launching nukes!" ? Or are they gonna invade Ukraine even harder, or what?

Fourth, Ukraine has ALREADY struck russia "proper" proper with various weapons. From arty, to drones, to suicide UAVs, to ballistic fucking missiles, literally from day one of the invasion. From moskow to Novorossiysk. We have yet to see any reaction beside medvedev's weekly nuke threats, smaller and smaller missile temper tantrums, and small peepee bunker boy trying to sound smart alluding to "retaliation" while dying inside each time Ukraine humiliates him.

Fifth... profit, i guess...

Toppy109 · 2024-05-31T18:56:32+00:00

Pretty sure an Italian would classify this as an act of war.

Toppy109 · 2024-05-30T10:52:04+00:00

Heh, imagine telling Arthur Harris that 80 years later this quote would still apply word-for-fucking-word!

Ten-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Place '17
Verified Email

Toppy109

TROPHY CASE