/kc/ - Krautchan

diaspora of krautchan unite

Posting mode: Reply

Check to confirm you're not a robot
Email
Subject
Comment
Password
Drawing x size canvas
File(s)

Remember to follow the rules

Max file size: 100.00 MB

Max files: 4

Max message length: 4096

Manage Board | Moderate Thread

Return | Catalog | Bottom

Expand All Images


(109.56 KB 1000x541 the strait.jpg)
recent news from ukranian navy incident Bernd 11/29/2018 (Thu) 17:09:44 [Preview] No. 20883
>>20877
Since the recent turn of events, ukraine asked to Turkey close the bosphorus strait to russian ships.

Commander of the naval forces of Ukraine added "We had to show our face in the Kerch Strait and the Sea of Azov, and show what these boats are capable of"

The russian side claims, it's unlawful to close the strait for a specific country, if there is a law about enclosing the strait, it applies to everyone.

It's still unpredictable how will my country react to these events.


Bernd 11/29/2018 (Thu) 17:49:54 [Preview] No.20885 del
How do they close down the Bosporus? There are facilities on the water which can block movement (a bridge for example, like in the background in pic)? Or Turkish ships intercept Russian ones and send them back?


Bernd 11/29/2018 (Thu) 18:07:11 [Preview] No.20886 del
>>20885
No physical blocking, by blocking they mean make russian ships forbidden to cross through bosphorus strait. I dont know if ukraine want this only for their military navy or trade fleet included.


Bernd 11/29/2018 (Thu) 18:29:32 [Preview] No.20889 del
>>20886
So basically forbidden by a ruling by the officials and then if a Russian ship tries to cross the Turkish navy warns that? Because the ban somehow has to be enforced.

>>20883
>and show what these boats are capable of"
Wonder what that means. They did some mischief?


Bernd 11/29/2018 (Thu) 18:35:20 [Preview] No.20890 del
>>20889
>>20889
>So basically forbidden by a ruling by the officials and then if a Russian ship tries to cross the Turkish navy warns that? Because the ban somehow has to be enforce
true, it has to be enforced but I'm sure even if we do it we wont disallow passages for russian trade fleets. Curbing the internation trade is forbidden by international laws.

>Wonder what that means.
They are not backing down it seems, I doubt they're bluffing at all.


Bernd 11/29/2018 (Thu) 18:36:21 [Preview] No.20891 del
>>20890
>internation trade
international trade*


Bernd 11/29/2018 (Thu) 21:39:38 [Preview] No.20901 del
You have to help your fellow Tatar brothers in need.


Bernd 11/29/2018 (Thu) 22:33:23 [Preview] No.20903 del
>>20901
Which one?


Bernd 11/29/2018 (Thu) 22:49:43 [Preview] No.20905 del
(131.76 KB 450x600 putilai_khan_of_rus.jpg)
>>20885
Byzantine Constantinople had a chain protecting the entrance to the golden horn, so it didn't span over the Bosporus. It also didn't help at all against the Ottoman invaders. Turkish army generals tried to post some tanks on the bridge of the Bosporus to putsch against the sultan, but they were overwhelmed by ├žomars.
>>20903
Since the Russian ambassador was killed, better not anger the true heirs of the Golden Horde.


Bernd 11/29/2018 (Thu) 23:08:44 [Preview] No.20906 del
>>20905
We're not in end of the middle ages now the reason. As for reason why we took istanbul from land not from navy (despite walls are weaker in there) was greek fire, it could quickly ruin the ships. And chains werent literal chains, it was pile old unused ships and stuff.

And ambassador thing is not a issue anymore.


Bernd 11/30/2018 (Fri) 00:13:51 [Preview] No.20909 del
(33.82 KB 598x348 ataturk.jpg)
>It's still unpredictable how will my country react to these events.

I don't think that Turkey would risk it's reputation with spontaneous actions in fast-changing political climate. There is Montreux convention and Turkey still conform to it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention_Regarding_the_Regime_of_the_Straits

It is actually more in Russian style, like shitting over hard-yearned gas exporter reputation for the sake of some irrelevant trade wars.


Bernd 11/30/2018 (Fri) 06:11:13 [Preview] No.20911 del
(396.72 KB 1663x1504 le-turan-face.jpg)
>>20905
After the incident NATO HQ deployed the 1st Throatsinging Platoon of the Military Band in the region. You can never know when the situation turns into events in need of dramatic background music, better keep that covered.


Bernd 11/30/2018 (Fri) 06:16:02 [Preview] No.20912 del
>>20909
Today I learned something and it's not even 7:30.


Bernd 11/30/2018 (Fri) 10:24:06 [Preview] No.20915 del
>>20909
>>20909
>I don't think that Turkey would risk it's reputation with spontaneous actions in fast-changing political climate.
It's ruled by one dumb madman, that's why it's unpredictable.


Bernd 11/30/2018 (Fri) 19:54:47 [Preview] No.20920 del
(372.72 KB 898x1250 spede.jpg)
>>20909
>The Soviet Union designated its Kiev-class and Kuznetsov-class aircraft carriers as "aircraft carrying cruisers." These ships were armed with P-500 and P-700 cruise missiles, which were also found on the Slava-class cruiser and the Kirov-class battlecruiser. The result was that that the Soviet Navy could send its aircraft carrying cruisers through the Straits in compliance with the Convention, but at the same time the Convention denied access to NATO aircraft carriers, which exceeded the 15,000 ton limit.[18][19][20][21]
>For several years after World War II, the Soviets exploited the restriction on the number of foreign warships by ensuring that one of theirs was always in the Straits, thus effectively blocking any nation other than Turkey from sending warships through the Straits.[24]
>The passage of US warships through the Straits also raised controversy, as the convention forbids the transit of non-Black Sea nations' warships with guns of a calibre larger than eight inches (203 mm). In the 1960s, the US sent warships carrying 420 mm calibre ASROC missiles through the Straits, prompting Soviet protests. The Turkish government rejected the Soviet complaints, pointing out that guided missiles were not guns and that since such weapons had not existed at the time of the Convention, they were not restricted.[26]
Rules lawyering at its finest.


Bernd 11/30/2018 (Fri) 21:26:59 [Preview] No.20927 del
(307.70 KB 784x800 kiev.jpg)
>>20920
>>The Soviet Union designated its Kiev-class and Kuznetsov-class aircraft carriers as "aircraft carrying cruisers." These ships were armed with P-500 and P-700 cruise missiles, which were also found on the Slava-class cruiser and the Kirov-class battlecruiser. The result was that that the Soviet Navy could send its aircraft carrying cruisers through the Straits in compliance with the Convention, but at the same time the Convention denied access to NATO aircraft carriers, which exceeded the 15,000 ton limit.[18][19][20][21]

Convention was one of reasons for designating these ships as cruisers, but there were others. From ideological (carrier is bourgeois capitalist attack ship, but USSR want only peace) to logical (main weapons were missiles, not planes).

Last reason was a result of long theoretical thought of Soviet navy research: USA/NATO will outnumber USSR fleet in foreseeable future, USSR had no proper economics to support large amount of big carriers, no tech and no experience. Sea-based regions weren't really interesting for USSR (north is empty and also frozen, east is just empty). It is much easier, cheaper and effective to use land-based bombers to attack naval targets. Only reason for real carriers to exist were maritime expeditionary operations, but they weren't really considered by USSR as something serious (and existing fleet could provide support for most cases). USA just had no choice, so they built carriers, but USSR had another things to do.

So, contrary to American tactic (carrier as center of naval battlegroup, moving base), Soviet "carriers" (and surface fleet) had one real task: cover ICBM sub deployment until subs can reach big open water (Pacific or Atlantic). Then fleet can heroically die, no one cares. "Carriers" had air group mostly for intercepting and antiair tasks, not for strike - it is too costly to maintain proper strike and air superiority groups together at one ship, much more planes are needed.

Considering these reasons, main anti-ship armament of Soviet carriers were missiles, and planes were more like addition (especially before Kuznetsov). On Kuznetsov designers tried to mix both concepts, but aircraft group still was fighter-dominant, not really strike-capable.


Bernd 12/01/2018 (Sat) 08:02:57 [Preview] No.20934 del
>>20920
When there is a will to find the backdoor they will be found.



Top | Return | Catalog | Post a reply