Russian invasion of Ukraine Pt 2

Please treat other members in a constructive and friendly manner: Our Community Guidelines.
  • especially when one of the sailors said unlock the lasers.

    That's the whole point. It gives the Russians a chance to see how we react, the response times and also gives the RN a chance to not only test equipment but to also see if the Russians have any countermeasures that can either match it or block it. It's very dangerous war games with both sides pushing boundaries. Don't forget that we do the exact same things to them as they do to us. We fly on the borders of their airspace as they do ours and it's the same with ships. We've had Russian ships sailing through the English channel numerous times. There was bunch of Russian warships not so long ago off the coast of Scotland.

  • But it was not a war scenario. As the commodore on the ship said, the Russians do not know the capability of the ship and the RN certainly wasn't going to show them. If a conflict with Russia does happen soon and it might, those planes would never get anywhere near the ship, they would be destroyed by the ships missiles far, far from the ship. Even the Americans have said that our destroyers are the best. And as for the laser, who knows what that can do. I'd imagine that would be used against drones.

    Sounds more like Star Trek!

    I don't know if the series is still on My5, but if it is, check it out for yourself. Laser was clearly mentioned.

  • But it was not a war scenario. As the commodore on the ship said, the Russians do not know the capability of the ship and the RN certainly wasn't going to show them. If a conflict with Russia does happen soon and it might, those planes would never get anywhere near the ship, they would be destroyed by the ships missiles far, far from the ship. Even the Americans have said that our destroyers are the best. And as for the laser, who knows what that can do. I'd imagine that would be used against drones.

    I don't know if the series is still on My5, but if it is, check it out for yourself. Laser was clearly mentioned.

    Aircraft deploy decoys that can seduce missiles. They're not always effective but they do have a certain success rate.


    The two principle forms of anti aircraft missile used by the RN are heat seeking missiles, that use infra red guidance systems which lock on to an aircraft's heat trail, and radar guided which lock onto a solid object in the sky that returns a signal.


    Classic decoys against heat seeking missiles include flares (often phosphorous) dropped by the aircraft which burn hotter than an aircraft exhaust and seduce the missile that way. Radar guided missiles can be deflected by something called "Chaff", which is deployed when the aircraft drops a canister full of strips of tinfoil that airbursts and creates a cloud of metallic reflective material in the sky between the missile and the aircraft. To the missile's radar it looks like a snowstorm and the aircraft can't be seen through it.


    I suspect these defensive mechanisms can be countered, but we have to remember that enemy aircraft don't necessarily need to get close to a ship to attack it. The "Fire and Forget" AM39 Exocet was used very effectively by Argentina in the 1982 Falklands War. Missiles were intended to damage the British flat top cruisers Invincible and Hermes. The first destroyed a picket ship, HMS Sheffield, and the second was seduced by a larger vessel, the MV Atlantic Conveyor that it attacked simply because it was biggest ship in the area.


    Another Exocet, jerry-rigged and launched from the back of a lorry in Port Stanley severely damaged HMS Glamorgan


    These missiles can be launched by aircraft coming from over the horizon and drop to almost wave height and therefore come in under the radar of defensive systems. Once the missile is launched the aircraft just turns around and goes home. In both air launched attacks on British shipping in 1982, the launching aircraft made its getaway.


    It's exciting to think of "James Bond" weapons like lasers and such, but warfare is usually much more "down and dirty". It's always seemed to me that no matter what offensive ability any side comes up with, the enemy very quickly develop defensive tactics against it. The Dielectric Mirror developed by Israel and USA has already been fitted onto drones to defend them against laser attack and are proving quite effective.


    Drones Fight Back Against Laser Weapons


    Personally, I think it would just be better if we didn't go to war in the first place, but hey..... what do I know...?

    Old Boy said: "Britain will have a trade deal with USA by the end of this year".

  • Personally, I think it would just be better if we didn't go to war in the first place, but hey..... what do I know...

    Now I could live with that policy....


    If only the other side would play ball!

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Yep nobody can argue with that one.


    And while on the Falklands lets not forget RFA Sir Galahad either (the first one) as it is completely irrelevant what weapons are onboard anything without the support of the RFA that keep their supplies in order including, troops, food, fuel, post, medical supplies and the rest of it along with the odd bottle of Pusser's. The RFA are a bit like a second silent service.


    It's always worth remembering to never underestimate the enemy. Thankfully our military know better and are not so cocksure of themselves and full of bravado like the yanks always are hence why they always make a mess of things including numerous blue on blues. We will do out best to prevent war and will negotiate a way out of things unlike the politicians that hand orders down so there is not always a choice at operation level....orders are orders.

  • Yep nobody can argue with that one.


    And while on the Falklands lets not forget RFA Sir Galahad either (the first one) as it is completely irrelevant what weapons are onboard anything without the support of the RFA that keep their supplies in order including, troops, food, fuel, post, medical supplies and the rest of it along with the odd bottle of Pusser's. The RFA are a bit like a second silent service.


    It's always worth remembering to never underestimate the enemy. Thankfully our military know better and are not so cocksure of themselves and full of bravado like the yanks always are hence why they always make a mess of things including numerous blue on blues. We will do out best to prevent war and will negotiate a way out of things unlike the politicians that hand orders down so there is not always a choice at operation level....orders are orders.


    Now...... "Orders are orders"......... there's quite an interesting point of law involved in that. OK, OK... I know that points of law are boring and nobody likes them, but there is - at the very least - a legal issue that could exonerate men who refuse to obey an order in certain circumstances (notwithstanding the fact that the order may be given when the enemy are shooting at them, which somewhat precludes the finer points of jurisprudence)


    It's long been a fact of British military law that the serviceman is required to obey all lawful commands issued by a superior officer or other person in a position of authority.


    It's that word "Lawful" that is the bummer here.


    A soldier would have legal justification for, say, refusing to fire a missile into an area occupied by civilians (contravenes the Geneva Convention). Likewise to open fire on civilians or even to shoot dead a captured, wounded and disarmed enemy combatant. (Sergeant Blackman, ex-Royal Marines take note).


    Of course, nobody considers these things when the metal is meeting the meat. But that's not the point.


    The issue of the legality of an order would arise in the planning stage of any operation, or the briefing point before the troops deploy for an operation. A soldier who was aware that he was being ordered to commit an unlawful act would have every right to refuse to take part in the operation and there could be no Court Martial action taken against him.


    I think it might damage his promotion prospects though. And his (now former) mates would probably carry out some form of retribution too. That those in authority would turn a blind eye to.


    This issue of "Lawful Command" has been pretty much swept under the carpet and despite human rights lawyers attempting to make it a more prominent issue during the Iraq / Afghanistan wars where - literally - thousands of war crimes were alleged to have been perpetrated, nothing came of any of them. Mainly due to one corrupt lawyer's activity giving the government all the excuse it needed to decide that none of the investigations would be sustainable. Phew.... jumped the shark on that one..!!


    But I think the clause of "Lawful Command" is a relevant one (it was created after the Nuremburg Trials, where defendants claimed they were obeying orders). It's there to ensure that commanders don't send men out specifically to commit war crimes, and giving a safe excuse for those whose consciences would not allow them to do so.


    I think it should receive more prominence in military issues........and certainly be given greater consideration when operations are at the planning stage.

    Old Boy said: "Britain will have a trade deal with USA by the end of this year".

  • History is much like an Endless Waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever.

    4312-gwban-gif

    If my post is in this colour  it is moderation. Take note.

  • I think half the time it’s six of one and half a dozen of the other. It’s hard to know whether to believe the US or Russia, but I have to say that I find Putin to be a sneaky troublemaker. Hopefully he will not be the Russian leader for too much longer and someone dedicated to peace and strengthening Russia’s economy for the benefit of its people will come to power.


    I can’t see us ever finding an accommodation with Vladimir Putin, sadly.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • I think half the time it’s six of one and half a dozen of the other. It’s hard to know whether to believe the US or Russia, but I have to say that I find Putin to be a sneaky troublemaker. Hopefully he will not be the Russian leader for too much longer and someone dedicated to peace and strengthening Russia’s economy for the benefit of its people will come to power.


    I can’t see us ever finding an accommodation with Vladimir Putin, sadly.

    Neither can I.


    Putin's main opponent who is currently in prison, is on his last legs and I doubt there will be anyone else around who would dare to challenge Putin at the moment.


    As for those American warships turning back, that's the green light Putin needed. Biden has shown weakness and now Putin will act. Never back down to a bully. We've stood up to the Russians at several points in our history over the centuries when they get aggressive and they do back down if they know an opponent is serious.

  • The turning back of American warships was an attempt to de-escalate the situation. I don't know exactly what lies behind it, but maybe Putin gave some reassurances or agreed to that meeting to thrash out a move to end the Russian covert cyber and other activities aimed at the West. I'm sure we will hear more about that soon; I think there's a lot happening behind the scenes.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • It's long been a fact of British military law that the serviceman is required to obey all lawful commands issued by a superior officer or other person in a position of authority.

    Yeh it's a tricky one. A serviceman in the midst of war could be ordered to line someone up to a firing squad as an act of genocide or kill a civilian. Now that would be wrong and both the officer and the serviceman would be held accountable in a court of law as we saw with the Natzi's. But then compare that to some of the acts in Northern Ireland and the difference in attitudes.


    IMO the serviceman, the person given the orders should never be held accountable for their actions no matter what. The buck stops with whoever gave that order and they should be held accountable. If the serviceman decided to do something of their own account and are caught for it then that's different. The day we start nicking serviceman for committing a war crime via orders from a superior is the day we lose control and ultimately the fight, servicemen will pause and ask questions. No more following orders, no more discipline.


    TBH IMO there is no such thing as rules when it comes to the battlefield. In the same way that orders are orders, war is war. There are no rules it's kill or be killed. That is the bottom line. I also don't think that it's too much to expect that fellow collogues, serviceman on that battlefield, turn a blind eye and stand by their collogues, their family. If anyone that turns out to not be loyal and a grass then that makes them just as bad and if they are bullied or worse because of it then so be it. They are then a traitor. The armed forces needs people that can work together and stand by each other. All together as one. That's how you win wars. Obviously the best thing is to not to let something escalate to point of it becoming war and it should be avoided as much as one can hold back. It doesn't help when we have politicians that only see money. War benefits them and the armed forces are used as scapegoats.

  • Tough one.


    War is war I agree, but Norra, you contradicted yourself between the first and second paragraphs there. If a solider is ordered to shoot a unarmed civilian, should they be held accountable or not?

  • If caught...and that is exactly what authorities have to do to keep up the pretence. It becomes a political argument then who are ultimately to blame for everything. I wouldn't expect a soldier that witnessed his mate do something to then go and grass them up. But this is generally how society works we see the same things in the Police force covering each others back. If we are going to put someone in some kind of authority over others then laws often get in the way and also contradict each other. Sometimes laws have to be broken to get the job done and laws sometimes break their own law. Why do you think the Police get away with stuff. More often than not all that is needed is someone to pass the blame onto and throw them to the lions so their can be put in the the national and / or local rags to appease the people and make it look like there some kind of authority and control. It's like entertainment, a modern day colosseum that then reinforces their authority.


    When it's a life and death situation with either you or your mate next to you that can be blown to bits what should they do. Take a battle in Afghan for example. They are supposed to wait until fired upon before firing back, That's the rules of engagement. What if they see someone that looks like a civilian walking around and they know that this person is a scout, lookout for the Taliban. Do they take them out there and then or do they wait for the Taliban to kill them. These guys are also suffering as they have seen their mates blown to smithereens and hyped up with anger and adrenaline, some are suffering PTSD etc. Who could blame them if one decided to take out that civilian knowing that it's saving the lives of either them or their mates. It's kill or be killed.


    How many of us would use more than reasonable force if an intruder broke into the family home in the middle of the night. Not many people are going to stop and think oh I can't do that because its going too far and I world be breaking the law. You do what needs to be done and worry about any consequences afterwards.

  • Any de-escalation is to be welcomed. Having so many troops facing eachother. It only takes a moments carelessness to start a full conflict.

    History is much like an Endless Waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever.

    4312-gwban-gif

    If my post is in this colour  it is moderation. Take note.

  • Biden backed down and now Putin has taken full advantage. He's blocked off the Kerch Strait, so no foreign warships can reach the Ukrainian ports which Putin will now seize and/or destroy.


    Well done Biden. :cursing:


    Article here: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne…ate-Ukrainian-border.html

    I doubt if Biden had anything to do with that decision. He's allegedly too far gone to be rational. There is a strong rumour doing the rounds that Obama is currently staying in the White house and is secretly running the show.

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!