Posts by Morgan Wright5

urbanotter said:I think your brain has been completely fried by propaganda.

Every single vessel is required to follow international standards known as SOLAS.

The protocols are strictly defined, and specific parameters depend entirely on the shipping company's own rules.
There isn't some shady corruption happening here; if you want to be a high-ranking officer—like a Chief Mate or a Captain—you actually have to pass captain's exams at one of the maritime authorities.
Beyond just finishing maritime academy, you have to pass these exams before a board composed of maritime officers who typically work within those port authorities.
The tank system is a closed loop, and during discharge, a mixture of air and Inert gas is pumped in to prevent the ship from over-inflating or losing pressure.

Oxygen levels in the tanks are strictly monitored; per SOLAS regulations, oxygen content must never exceed 11% because, at that level, combustion becomes impossible. It is standard for oxygen levels to hover between 5% and 8%, and every individual company and vessel maintains its own additional set of strict protocols.

Additionally, a ship's keel shouldn't get closer to the seabed than 0.5% of the ship's length when in a calm harbor without waves; once at anchor, that distance increases to 5% or more of the ship's length.
Furthermore, the ship's trim must be set so that you have a clear line of sight from the bridge covering at least two times the length of the vessel.

Look, my friends, running a ship requires actual expertise, not just shouting nonsense on an internet forum.

The ship cargo procedure between two vessels is essentially the same as discharging at a terminal. Ships don't necessarily need to touch; they often maintain a slow speed while maneuvering, frequently connecting via 3 to 5 large, egg-shaped fenders that can be several meters in diameter.

Let's be real, high-ranking officers don't earn salaries of $13,000 to $15,000 or more for nothing.

In order for a company to pay you that kind of money, you actually have to know what you're doing instead of just trolling online.

That is only a small fraction of the actions and oversight required during the loading or unloading of oil.

When it comes to these types of cargo operations, neither Putin nor Ursulica nor Plenki can step in to help with manipulations; you need the training, the schooling, and the certifications to handle the tasks that are part of a mariner's daily life.
Loading and unloading cargo isn't as simple as just sitting around writing poetry on the Mississippi River.

But this isn't really the topic at hand, so let's wrap this up before we drift further into off-topic chatter and trolling.

p.s.
Of course, everything gets logged and stays on the computer, and any time we have to deviate from the standard ship cargo procedure, we need to get the green light from the shipowner first.

Everything you just wrote could basically be summarized in two words: Inert gas. Not air.

urbanotter said:Honestly, if people actually knew what was going on, they wouldn't be so surprised.

Transferring oil from one ship to another is a common, well-established procedure carried out by professional crews.

It’s standard operating procedure for a first officer, who keeps a constant eye on the cargo levels in the tanks; they are especially meticulous about managing the air composition inside those tanks to prevent any risk of ignition.

I suspect they aren't paying much attention to the air composition, though.

rowdymaker17 said:The world has indeed developed a hunger for investing here because every broker out there is advising people to go long on the ruble. In fact, those savvy enough to move when the ruble initially tanked at the start of the conflict have already pocketed massive profits now that the value has surged 40% against the dollar. Current projections suggest it will continue to climb through year-end. Even Bloomberg is reporting that the ruble is currently the most attractive currency on the market for investors, and many are already moving in to further stabilize its rise in anticipation of significant returns. It appears that the NATO sanctions have achieved precisely the opposite of what they were intended to prevent. One can only wonder what sort of inept politicians our nations have seen fit to elect. Compared to the scale of this, Alan Ford is practically a child.

Regarding the other matter, the purchasing power of the average Russian is essentially equal to that of the average German. This implies that the typical German possesses the highest purchasing power among all European states. Therefore, Germany, Russia, and Indonesia share similar per capita purchasing power, while China, Japan, and India hold much higher levels compared to Europe, Asia, or Africa. That is where the entire argument begins and ends.

It seems to me that uneducated individuals want to believe Russia is some destitute backwater inhabited by lunatics, yet the reality is quite different. For instance, the USA actually has a higher poverty rate than Russia does.

If the average Russian enjoys the same purchasing power domestically as the average German, it signifies one thing: they will endure these sanctions just as long, if not longer, than the rest of the European states. Those other nations, being poorer and having citizens with significantly lower purchasing power, will begin to fall like dominoes—and they are already starting to feel the impact. Germany, however, if it falls at all, will likely be the last to go. The reason Russia might emerge from this considerably stronger is simple: unlike Germany, Russia possesses nearly every essential resource on the planet and can easily provide warmth and food for its people. As for Germany... we shall see how they manage with the most expensive logistics chain in the world just to secure oil. I can already envision the price of a gallon of gasoline in $8.25 by the end of the year. When prices hit $6.75, we will see gas stations, mechanics, tire shops, vehicle rentals, and the entire transport sector beginning to collapse. Yet, our esteemed politicians insist on learning from their own mistakes—mistakes that we are ultimately forced to pay for. 👍

If the average American had the purchasing power of a Russian, well... we would be a different kind of superpower. But no, we live in a place with the costs of a developing nation but the price tags of the USA. It is a grim reality. 👍

Have you ever actually been to Russia?

wiredseal7 said:I don't even know what the French were up to in Africa, or what the US is doing in Somalia—aside from whenever they're filming some action movie. I guess I'm just not allowed to ask, according to the armchair experts.

I imagine you're implying something about what the UN was doing over in Somalia.

Nancy Gomez26 said:What purpose would an aircraft carrier serve in the Black Sea? Could it even get in there to begin with? There is a massive network of NATO airfields lining the coast, not to mention aerial tankers for those operating from further afield—sending a carrier into that environment simply lacks logic.

Furthermore, NATO (technically speaking) is not a 'belligerent power' in this conflict, so there shouldn't be any restrictions placed on them.

American carriers can't enter the Black Sea for two main reasons: first, they are simply too large, and second, under the Montreux Convention, vessel transit is limited to 15,000 tons.

darkrider55 said:Honestly, an air strike version doesn't make much sense here because their air defense is just way too heavy, so the second option is probably our best bet.

And just out of curiosity, what exactly would they be launching that second version from?

Larry Wilson25 said:Maybe if they were looking for cheap hardware, sure. But this? This is basically an IOU from the US. Once Congress signs off on it, the money is officially in the bag.
The Slovaks supposedly scored a Patriot system—though who knows which version exactly. Our leadership doesn't stand a chance of pulling that off. Not to mention, even if they did hand over a system, they’d be handing over something they won't even be ready to operate for another two years. Being "ready" isn't just having the machine; you have to actually train, and training costs real money.

The war in Ukraine has definitely kept the factories running, though.

---

Now that we're heading into full-on frontal warfare, a lot of this Western "tech" is finally going to see its real-world testing. It would be something if the Jewish community stepped up to help out here, too.

It isn't so much that the Slovaks were given a Patriot, but rather that the Americans have deployed the Patriot in Slovakia.

placidrider48 said:I mean, if we were actually sending stuff, there’d probably be some sort of deal to swap in Western or Far East alternatives—like from Korea or Japan. For instance, I think we've already quietly started swapping out our Gvozdika units for some PzH 2000s.

I suppose the PHZ isn't really a direct substitute for the Gvozdika, especially since we only have exactly eight of those on hand. As for these grand arrangements where gear is sent off in exchange for Western tech, it feels a bit like counting chickens before they've even hatched.

placidrider48 said:Gvozdika. They've got plenty of those lying around, I suppose, but whatever. Honestly, I think the Metis and Konkurs systems—whatever we actually have left of them—would probably fit the situation best. And obviously, the Stingers.

The reality is, we can't really send any of that over, because if we did, we'd be left with absolutely nothing ourselves.

Andrew Miller102 said:Since you were apparently born yesterday,😁 or maybe just finished serving in the military a few weeks ago, you should probably find something better to do than posting tens of thousands of messages on a forum out of sheer boredom.

Russian tanks have always been subpar, characterized by poor armor and designs full of compromises from the T-72 onwards. There’s really no point even mentioning the older junk.When an area is defended by a well-equipped unit equipped with various anti-tank weapons, Russian tanks are essentially written off, and the crew is dead in about 90% of cases.

Take the battle for El Paso as an example, where our defenders targeted anything that moved into their sights. They mostly relied on M72 LAWs, or those local M-84 tanks, and the LAWs punched through without any issues.☕

http://www.military-today.com/firearms/m79_osa.htm

If I had to choose, I’d opt for a Merkava 4, given that the Israeli Trophy active protection system is incredibly effective.In a broad sense, yes, a tank is becoming little more than a mobile pillbox, and its relevance will likely continue to diminish in the future.

"Even the Merkava isn't perfect; those brilliant designers decided to put the engine and fuel tank right at the front of the tank."

The Trophy system can be easily overwhelmed, so if you're in urban combat and getting hit by multiple projectiles simultaneously, you're absolutely screwed.☕

An M79 would probably penetrate any Western tank from that same era.

Roger Fowler said:I'm not even sure how much sense sending AK-47s makes for Ukraine since they aren't using that standard ammo anymore, is there? It all goes back to the fact that while the US Army was transitioning to the AKM—which we know as the zastava M70—back in the 70s, the USSR and the Warsaw Pact had already moved on to the AK-74 model using 5.45x39mm rounds, whereas the zastava M70 sticks to the classic 7.62x39mm used by the AK-47. So, who knows if Ukraine actually has any 7.62x39mm ammunition left, considering those zastava M70 models are stuck using that ancient caliber.

If you take a closer look at the photos and the footage, you might notice that the AK-47 is actually being used quite extensively. Also, just as a side note, the US Army didn't switch from the M48 to an AKM, but rather transitioned to a machine gun.

Ryan Morales4 said:I don't see the point in focusing on armor...
That kind of thing requires fuel resources that we are rapidly running out of...
It would be far more important to deliver mobile air defense systems and anti-tank weaponry instead.
That is where the priority should be.

Well, I suppose you could argue a tank is essentially just a mobile anti-tank platform itself.

Ryan Morales4 said:I’m hoping NATO actually followed through on delivering that set of Barrett M82 rifles.
Anti-tank weaponry is absolutely critical right now.
It completely guts the enemy's morale.

I mean, as if anyone would actually try to go up against heavy armor with a Barrett right now. It’s clearly meant for much more serious targets than that.

Christian Torres3 said:Exactly.

Side note—the people obsessed with how "powerful" the Rafael system is will never get that.

I suspect it almost doesn't matter which aircraft we ended up purchasing. Honestly, none of the options on the table would have integrated seamlessly into our current framework anyway. It felt more like we had to build the entire infrastructure from the ground up first, and then select a plane that actually fit that newly designed system.

Andrew Miller102 said:At the end of the day, what else are they going to send,😁 if not Russian hardware that the Ukrainians actually know how to operate or have experience maintaining?

An M1 Abrams isn't invincible, and honestly, it’s far too expensive to risk seeing one get taken out by a Russian infantry anti-tank system.We've seen two examples already, though I'm not entirely sure if that second one was a Russian Fagot or a Konkurs ATGM.☕

https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFoota...ting_hit_with/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ttlefield.html

No tank is indestructible, really, and one shouldn't view a tank as an isolated entity; rather, it’s just a single cog within a much larger system. I suspect a mediocre tank integrated into a well-functioning system is arguably better than the most modern machine being used inadequately.

Thomas Nelson25 said:(I'm reading that they're repairing tanks that aren't totally trashed, so they'd probably use any tank from that family—licenses, old T-series stuff from the USSR)

As for those wheeled guns... they call them self-propelled howitzers, if I remember right 🤔 though I never really knew the exact definition. I think it's just a general term.

They need something similar to an M1 Abrams
The main perk is mobility.

The Mexicans have a cheaper version.

P
The Ukrainians have everything from Forget-me-nots and Acacias to Msta, Pion, Nona, and Hyacinth-S systems

Roger Fowler said:If we send those, we’d better be ready to bundle them with plenty of ammunition, wouldn't we? Western artillery relies on the 155mm standard, whereas the Russians stick to 152mm, so I can't say for sure if those smaller rounds will actually fit in the Vickers systems, though maybe they will.🤷

Of course they won't fit.

coastalbison6 said:I don't buy it. That's guerrilla warfare gear—effective at ranges from 20m up to 1200m with high precision and various warheads.

The RWG90 is really in the same league as the AT4—it isn't guided, and its practical range is probably closer to 500m.

rowdyraven112 said:The tank is gone. Operator had enough time to brew and drink a coffee. ☕

When a tank is in a city, you don't use a Stug; you use the stuff I just mentioned. You fire, you pop out, and you hope for the best. In urban combat, hitting a moving target is damn hard, especially if they have support. Ask the Memphis defenders how many rounds they had to dump into a single tank. Don't talk to me like I'm playing Call of Duty.

That isn't really the issue; using an NLAW in a city should be perfectly fine.
With a minimum engagement distance of maybe 80m, you can fire from indoors, whereas a Javelin needs at least 150m. Honestly, most of the Western gear we've received should be able to knock out any Russian tank without much trouble. The real challenge is simply the sheer volume of anti-tank weaponry required; the front line is so massive that a good portion of these supplies just sits in reserve, never actually getting the chance to be deployed, because they have to be positioned along the entire line.