• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

The Russian Invasion of Ukraine Part 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
I admit it peeves me to no end when people use "gun" and "howitzer" interchangeably for the same artillery piece. Even when it's a gun-howitzer, which the L119 probably is.
 
I admit it peeves me to no end when people use "gun" and "howitzer" interchangeably for the same artillery piece. Even when it's a gun-howitzer, which the L119 probably is.

But it is a Gun. It's designation is the L118 Light Gun
 
But it is a Gun. It's designation is the L118 Light Gun

In this case the desegregation is a bit of a giveaway.

Buy in general all howitzers are guns as they've just a subset. "Guns" covers all from pistols to the main armament of battleships
 
Why though? Can't the British Army train them in the use of a British gun in service with the British Army? they are already in the UK.

Cross-pollination is good. Inter-unit cameraderie is good. New Zealanders and Ukrainians training together is good for both sides. It's good for allies to spread these kinds of experiences around all the allied forces, and plant those seeds in as many of their institutions as possible.

Why wouldn't New Zealand take advantage of this opportunity?
 
Looks like some Czech attack helicopters found their way onto Ukraine according to US official. Now that was well hidden, nobody here caught it.
 
But it is a Gun. It's designation is the L118 Light Gun
That's what peeves me. It's clearly a howitzer or gun-howitzer by description and design, and thus the "gun" designation is annoying to me.

In this case the desegregation is a bit of a giveaway.

Buy in general all howitzers are guns as they've just a subset. "Guns" covers all from pistols to the main armament of battleships
Context is important.

When it comes to artillery, there are three main categories:

Mortars, which have relatively large calibers, low muzzle velocities, and are ideal for plunging fire to get past obstacles and cover. That Russian artillery piece that's being discussed just upthread is a mortar. Notice how close to vertical the barrel is. That's characteristic of mortars.

Guns, which have relatively small calibers, high muzzle velocities, and are ideal for firing directly at targets. Tanks have guns, for example. Notice how tank gun barrels are generally pretty close to horizontal. That's characteristic of guns.

Howitzers, which are an intermediate type of artillery, a more general purpose weapon that covers all the scenarios between optimal gun work and optimal mortar work. Gun-howitzers are a subtype. As the name implies, they're towards the gun end of the howitzer spectrum, and are designed to be effective in direct-fire modes (even though this is generally not advised for artillery - there's a reason tanks are a thing).

Anyway, I'm happy to see the Kiwis getting some face time with the Ukrainians, even if they do have silly nomenclature for their howitzers and gun-howitzers. It's not like the naming convention will affect their combat efficacy at all.
 
Cross-pollination is good. Inter-unit cameraderie is good. New Zealanders and Ukrainians training together is good for both sides. It's good for allies to spread these kinds of experiences around all the allied forces, and plant those seeds in as many of their institutions as possible.

Why wouldn't New Zealand take advantage of this opportunity?

Just noticed that the British don't operate the L119 version any longer. They were only in service as training weapons until old stocks of the US M1 type ammunition were used up then they were retired. It is however the main export version as the US ammo is fairly widely used.
Also the British guns no longer have optical sights, they use the LINAPS artillery pointing system (APS) mounted above the barrel https://electronics.leonardo.com/en/products/linaps

So there is a good reason for New Zealand to send trainers.
 
George Orwell’s dystopian classic Nineteen Eighty-Four was written to describe the dangers of western liberalism – not totalitarianism - a top Moscow diplomat has claimed.

“For many years we believed that Orwell described the horrors of totalitarianism. This is one of the biggest global fakes … Orwell wrote about the end of liberalism. He depicted how liberalism would lead humanity to a dead end,” Maria Zakharova, the spokesperson for Russia’s foreign ministry, said during a public talk in Ekaterinburg on Saturday.

...


Zakharova had been asked by a member of the public how to respond to friends and relatives abroad when they suggested that Russia was living in a modern-day replay of Orwell’s novel.

“Orwell did not write about the USSR, it wasn’t about us,” she said. “He wrote about the society in which he lived, about the collapse of the ideas of liberalism. And you were made to believe that Orwell wrote it about you.” Zakharova suggested the audience member tell her relatives abroad: “It’s you in the west who live in a fantasy world where a person can be cancelled.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...sm-not-totalitarianism-claims-moscow-diplomat

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. This might as well be Russia's official motto.
 
He should tell that to Ivan Denisovich.

Cancellation in the west: Some people think and say some mean things about you. You may or may not lose a job or money. You can still open for John Mulaney.

Cancellation in Russia: You are erased from photographs. You must flee the country. You might be murdered anyway.
 
Oh come on, how bad can "It's as if you never even existed" really be?

Orwell is laughing his head off in the great hereafter over the russians attempts to distory his writing.
 
Last edited:
That much of 1984 was specfically modeled on Stalin's Russia seems to have passed them by.

Next you will be saying that Animal Farm was inspired by the Russian Revolution
 
A bunch of pro-Russian channels on Youtube got shut down today, mostly for reporting false or misleading information. It seems like many of them went to twitter instead.

Several videos of groups of Ukr soldiers claiming that they've been abandoned without weapons or ammo, threatening to desert. Oddly, not a single one of the soldiers in any of those videos have yellow or blue or green armbands. It's almost as if they are not even Ukrainian soldiers at all.

Several claims that the town of Lyman has fallen to Russian forces. That seems to probably not be true - yet. The town clearly got hit with monstrous artillery barrages, including some big thermobaric barrages. A few well connected generally pro-Ukrainian reporters mentioned that Ukraine might pull out, or seemed to be pulling out, or that Russia had entered part of the town, or other phrases that clearly signaled uncertainty. Pro-Russian reporters stripped all the ambiguity out and ran with it, gleefully claiming that even the pro-Ukr side admitted Lyman was definitely lost (the pro-Ukr reporters reported no such thing instead reporting uncertainty and partial or potential outcomes). The pro-Russian sources also claim mass surrenders and desertion from the Ukr side, with one claiming 8000 Ukr captured in Severodonetsk. No evidence to back that up, of course.

Zelensky has stated that Russia has a 20:1 advantage in equipment in Donbass.

To my mind, the situation in Donbass still seems worrisome. Russia is still pushing very hard, Russian forces in that area no longer seem to lack for food or ammo. Ukr is still losing ground - slowly - but losing ground nonetheless. They seem to control part of Lyman, which they didn't control yesterday.:(
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom