No.1322
>>1321
The VDV has been doing a lot of complex maneuvers
No.1323
>>1321
>muh russkie human vaves!
Fuck off /pol/
No.1324
>>1323They sent in choppers before destroying air defenses. It wasn't a human wave attack, but they did rush things.
No.1325
>>1324>They sent in choppers before destroying air defensesNo, they didn't, the destroyed all front-line air defenses using cruise missiles the very day the operation began and almost all remaining anti-air capability that has been demonstrated is in MANPADs.
>rushed thingsStop reading Western MSM, they literally cannot stop shitting out of their mouths for 5 minutes. Look up Graham Phillips and other on-scene journalists that aren't NATO shills, the Russian aviation lost only a couple helicopters and even then having no casualties among the pilots so far.
No.1362
People say the Ukraine shouldn't have given its nukes but let's be real what good are 40-50 years old ICBMs? Doesn't this stuff has shelf life? And I don't think Ukraine had the means to make more.
No.1364
>>1362arent american and russian (from soviet times), nukes still active?
No.1381
Even if they don't explode it's still a toxic amount of radioactive element inside
No.1382
>>1345Russia has learned that armored vehicles are effectively deathtraps in the face of a single cheap drone loaded with 5lbs of RDX.
The rest of the world has learned that it's surprisingly easy to bully nuclear-armed countries with conventional tactics.
China has learned that it should never have invented the term "paper tiger," because Russia is much better prepared for a war than China and they've barely moved 30km in a week and have been humiliated on the global stage even if they eventually take Ukraine. Expect a third Chinese attempt at modernization out of barely-concealed pants-shitting fear.
No.1384
From what i've gathered, Russia is trying to do a modern blitzkrieg by trying to wipe out forces in an area with air power and artillery, then sending infantry to clean the rest?
No.1387
>>1382>armored vehicles are effectively deathtraps in the face of a single cheap drone loaded with 5lbs of RDX.The fuck is this absolute nonsense, that's not how IEDs function and certainly not drones
>better prepared for a war than China and they've barely moved 30km in a week and have been humiliated on the global stageThe fucking hell is this garbage? They literally advanced 30km in the first day and 50km yesterday, they're taking it slow because you can't do tactical strikes on armored and artillery units that are very close to obvious civilians, because even if you drop a missile precisely on target, the blast radius and other problems are going to cause collateral damage and risk killing noncombatants, a very important part of the entire operation. Massive numbers of Ukrainian forces are surrendering, Russia has surrounded major cities like Odessa and Kharkov and the Ukrainian junta 'leadership' fled to Lvov and are using desperate measures (like hiding behind civilian bodies) to stall for time.
>a third Chinese attempt at modernization out of barely-concealed pants-shitting fear.Yeah, yeah, yeah, back to reddit.
TL;DR: go bullshit elsewhere cunt
No.1388
>>1384Stop reading MSM news from the West, airstrikes on military targets had been the initial move and since then they have not used large numbers of artillery or anything else like that, instead using primarily ground and helicopter units to storm occupied territories and drive out the neo-nazis.
No.1389
>>1387>your observations hurt my feelings so I'm going to call you a glowieyou love to see it
No.1390
>>1389Your posts are fucking garbage that make no sense and literally repeat glowie talking points repeated by garbage media like CNN, National Interest and others, you're fooling nobody.
No.1391
>>1382>Russia has learned that armored vehicles are effectively deathtraps in the face of a single cheap drone loaded with 5lbs of RDX.Mostly wrong, Tanks were a main battle unit produced in large numbers and are becoming a highly specialized weapon system for breaching fortifications that are produced in low numbers, because small rocket propelled artillery with guided ammunition can do most of the same tasks for cheaper.
Drones aren't here to stay, they are just an intermediary weapons system that exists because development of anti-air defenses had an extremely narrow focus on shooting down expensive high value jets that go really fast, and the economics of these high powered systems don't add up against cheap slow drones. But that's already changing.
>The rest of the world has learned that it's surprisingly easy to bully nuclear-armed countries with conventional tactics.Is this a sick joke ? An entire country now lies in shambles because of stupidity like this.
>China has learned that it should never have invented the term "paper tiger," No it's a decent linguistic creation.
>because Russia is much better prepared for a war than China and they've barely moved 30km in a week and have been humiliated on the global stage even if they eventually take Ukraine. Expect a third Chinese attempt at modernization out of barely-concealed pants-shitting fear.I don't get the reasoning behind this, Russian forces advanced very fast, and how is any of this related to China. Can you be more specific what kind of modernization you predict China will do ?
No.1393
>>1391>Mostly wrong, Tanks were a main battle unit produced in large numbers and are becoming a highly specialized weapon systemArmored vehicles anon, not tanks. Drones have been absolutely wrecking transports in this conflict.
>Is this a sick joke ? An entire country now lies in shambles because of stupidity like this.I agree, it's a shame the world had to learn this way, but now China and the US are on alert that no, nuclear weapons will not save them.
>No it's a decent linguistic creation. Paper tiger is indeed a great linguistic creation, but it's currently coming back to bite the Chinese in the ass. If the US is a paper tiger, then Russia is a wet tissue paper tiger and China an advanced hologram of a paper tiger where nothing is actually there.
>Can you be more specific what kind of modernization you predict China will do ?I foresee a dramatic overhaul of their troop transports and tanks, almost all of which are based on Russian designs that have proven at minimum problematic in the field. I also predict a greater focus on logistics. Russia's convoy stalled the second they left their supply rails, and while their soldiers may have been well-equipped, you need functional supply lines so that your soldiers actually have enough food and ammunition to effectively prosecute a war. This would have prevented large numbers of vehicles simply running out of gas and embarrassing videos of special forces having to loot grocery stores to eat.
No.1394
>>1393>Drones have been absolutely wrecking transports in this conflict.Drones have hardly been a major part of the conflict at all and got disabled by simply taking out their airbase and using MANPADs
>If the US is a paper tiger, then Russia is a wet tissue paper tiger and China an advanced hologram of a paper tiger where nothing is actually there.Just claiming that means nothing
>Russian designs that have proven at minimum problematic in the field<bla bla bla st00pid russkie tanks, let me repeat more armchair NATO-propaganda about them being bad >Russia's convoy stalled the second they left their supply rails <source: your ass >you need functional supply lines so that your soldiers actually have enough food and ammunition to effectively prosecute a warNo shit, doesn't mean your claims are true
>videos of special forces having to loot grocery stores to eat.LMAO are you schizophrenic? Besides the fact that they carry enough food for days, literally the second day they gave out food to the freed citizens.
No.1396
>>1394I like how you're so clearly upset that your entire post amounts to "n-no! that's not what I heard on the ukraine general, it must not be true!" Good talking to you, kid.
No.1397
>>1396>ukraine general>u-ur a kid>I'm not upset u r! Your "analysis" is fucking shallow rubbish backed by nothing and having the analytical capacity of a typical nitteroid, there is nothing to argue because you have no argument, only vague and blatantly incorrect claims that can only be based on propaganda rubbish at best, and schizo ramblings are the more likely source. Even the US DoD isn't pretending that the Russian forces are weak like you do.
No.1398
>>1397I think the propaganda about Russian forces having bad equipment is not propaganda for convincing you they can't win this conflict, it's about creating bad advertisement for Russian weapons systems to make them loose arms sales.
No.1399
>>1398I think it's both an attempt to make Russia look incapable of taking Ukraine (mostly to the liberals they hop to garner the support of) AND to make Russian weapon sales drop.
No.1400
>>1398It's good in general no? Just another way to attack them.
>>1399Yup, why not both
No.1402
>>1345Well cities are the best defencive landscapes especially in cased were the enemy actually wants to win local support (aka civil wars)
That you cant take over large nations easily just cause you have some popular support a repeat of a boxer rebbelion and similar wars will never happen again due to nationalsim
No.1406
>>1405The Ukrainian army as a unified group is mostly broken, but army units still exist and have changed tactics to ambushes and other shit supported by fanatical Volksturm, the further West you go the more anti-Russian people get even in spite of their ever shittier situation even before the Operation began.
It's a Molotov-Ribbentrop (Poland) or even more a Winter War type situation - either Russia doesn't act and continues to diplomatically oppose an increasingly fanatical Ukrainian government but remains clean of open "attack" (and thus letting NATO eventually plant their seeds there) OR they have to invade and take over the entire country to prevent things from going further. A politically no-win situation in regards to Ukraine. They'll be busy as fuck covering their ass from rogue remenants of fanatical Azovites and Aidarovites supported by brainwashed locals that only hear bullshit about "evul russkies" and have forgotten the meaning of brother countries.
No.1407
>>1406In general with a situation where country A is invading country B and their army has near collapsed, how feasible would it be for country A to swoop in and occupy all the connections between the cities, and try and isolate them as much as possible? Just take critical infrastructure and avoid touching the urban areas or places where significant troop presence remains. Could it work to force a capitulation?
No.1408
>>1407>how feasible would it be for country A to swoop in and occupy all the connections between the cities, and try and isolate them as much as possible? Just take critical infrastructure and avoid touching the urban areas or places where significant troop presence remains. Could it work to force a capitulation? Technically it could function and that is kind of the situation, but international geopolitics have an impact in an area such as Ukraine, as compared to some place in the Third World
No.1420
>>1419 Interesting video, thanks for posting
>the birth of a new type of armor that uses spaced out layersAnon, Tanks have been using spaced armor since WW2
https://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.com/2015/12/the-truth-about-spaced-armor-on-modern.html >Reactive armor may be upgraded to directional explosive plate ejection Again, this is already implemented in the Ukrainian Nozh ERA and all Russian/Soviet ERA after Kontakt-5.
>pop off a number of metal plates in a trajectory that intersects with incoming missiles.Kind of like a Active Defense system you mean?
No.1423
>>1419The only issue I can see there is that most of the tank kills the Ukrainians are scoring are with NLAWs, not Javelins. Javelins go around and hit the top armor, whereas NLAWs just hit the sides. Javelins are for sure more effective, but putting a metal grid on top of your tank is more of a talisman than actual defense.
also lol wikipedia
No.1424
>>1420Tanks could have layered armor that is compact in transit and when it enters combat it extends outwards spacing out it's armor layers. The top layer could be made out of platelets that are ejected at incoming projectiles before contacting the vehicle to make the armor absorb impacts further away from the tank.
>>1423They need to put cages on the side as well.
No.1425
>>1424>They need to put cages on the side as wellThey should just leave the tank in the garage, the strongest cage of all.
No.1435
Embedding error.
No.1481
>Q: Why is there a lack of scopes used by Russian forces in Ukraine? <A: They are used but in limited amounts as per Russian military doctrine, because close range fighting doesn't have the luxury of time or need for scopes unless you're a sniper or on an open field. Russia has plenty of sights for it's guns, hell, the AK-74M comes with a side mount for optics (picatinny rails aren't the only thing people use you american), and Russian optics been manufactured in the 80s-90s and now, it's just optics are very situational, hence why soldiers only sometimes use them :)
Here's a website that has info about Russian optics
https://russianoptics.net/
>Optics. There are 2-4 1P63 collimator sights per squad. It depends on commander how they would be distributed along the men (e. g. 1st and 2nd platoons consist most of the contract operators, means they’d get 4 sights per unit, rather then 3rd platoon with recruit men, who get 2 sights per unit). There are units fully complected with 4 sights per squad. Usually, there are 25-40 sights per company. There are no helmet-mounted NVG’s in units, but many firearm-mounted scopes ( 1P51 “NSPU-3” ), 3-5 units per squad, 30-50 per company. Some of contract operators buying themselves modifications for their firearms, e. g. optics (Western too), tactical grips, rail systems and so on. Some of HQ units buying themselves a thermal-imaging devices.>1P63 sights are given by army as a part of equipment, 1P29 scopes are rarely met due to their old design. Some contract operators buy themselves Russian 1P76, NPZ PK-1, Cobra, PK-A, etc. Оptics or Western EOTech, Aimpoint, Bushnell and etc.https://www.reddit.com/r/joinsquad/comments/635tim/dont_russians_have_enought_money_to_buy_optics/https://community.battlefront.com/topic/116715-cm-black-sea-%E2%80%93-beta-battle-report-russian-side/page/14/#comment-1564057 No.1485
>>1345Have we seen any evidence of active protection systems working against NLAW/Javelin in the conflict so far? Also, what's the extent of the damage Ukrainian drones have inflicted on Russian armour?
No.1486
>>1485I mean there isn't a lot of comprehensive footage of tank battles. There is a video of a Bayraktar drone taking out a tank by hitting the roof, but as far as I can tell all tanks taken out in that manner are older Ukrainian and captured Donbass T-72s and T-64Bs mounting Kontakt-1 ERA that Javelin and NLAW got made to defeat. The Javelin already fails to defeat roof armor the moment a ad hoc cage gets put over the roof (as the DPR are doing) so the Ukrainians have kept to the traditional linear strikes for PTRK systems.
No.1488
>>1487Interesting. Thanks anon. I remember this video, but the Ukrainian cut of it that makes it look like they took out a whole column. Didn't realise that second hit on the second tank was an ERA interception
No.1507
Hey Anons, I don't know too much about military strategy/hardware, but It seems to me that this conflict shows that pretty much every heavy, expensive system can be destroyed by much cheaper hand-held devices (with maybe the exception of planes).
Theoretically that would mean that militaries should be mainly focusing around infantry, probably motorised, and their airforce.
Why are so many militaries then still investing in tanks and the sort? Is it because they weren't fighting comparable armies? Am I missing something?
No.1509
>>1507Handheld devices appear effective because they are meant to be the infantry's method of defeating mechanized troops in the absence of your own, but unlike a tank that can usually take a hit and keep going, an infantry soldier is dead the moment they reveal themselves in an ambush taking out a target, so they need to attack en masse or at isolated targets to have a chance of victory - i.e. hit-and-run. The problem is that against any force of significant size, you can harass troops using handhelds but you aren't going to be able to hold the ground, as Ukraine demonstrates. It's the same as Afghanistan - they did damage, sure, but the overall superiority lent itself to the Soviets and they rapidly made gains on Mujahed territories. Moreover the most effective systems against tanks and aircraft used are massive bulky things like the NLAW, that needs a soldier to set up before firing, making the entire point of a portable ATGM pointless unless you're having a dug-in fight, and unless you have air support or mechanized troops of your own, the result is going to be poor. I'm loath to dig through 600+ files but there's a good number of videos of Donetsk troops and voenkors in former Ukrainian trenches that had numerous Javelins and other handheld missiles, but failed to use them fast enough to counter them being stormed by an armored group.
No.1510
>>1507The failure of tanks in this conflict is not a failure of the tanks themselves, it's a failure of the Russian military to provide infantry support to tanks.
Watch any of the dozens of videos of Russian tanks getting taken out by cheapo NLAWs, and you'll notice that not ONCE is there an infantry escort to actually take care of guys with anti-tank weaponry. It's such a colossal fuckup on the part of Russia that it's a wonder they haven't thought to fix it after the first dozen tanks lost.
No.1511
>>1510>The tanks don't have infantry support They do. In the heat of battle tank support can get separated from the infantry, and infantry or not, an ambush is still going to have an impact.
>cheapo NLAWsThey're expensive as fuck actually
No.1512
>>1511Anon I don't know if you've noticed but $30,000 is cheap as fuck for something that can take out a tank. A Javelin costs 7x as much and would only do the job marginally better.
No.1513
>>1512>30,000 is cheap as fuck for something that can take out a tankexcept they don't, not reliably against anything that isn't an old tank from before their era. The Javelin already got partially negated on older tanks by simply putting a cage over the roof and modern tanks have ERA and APS.
Moreover most of those ATGMs don't get a chance to be used. There's even a video of a bunch of ATGM toting fags that got walloped by tank shells as they tried to use them. The tanks taken out mostly remain repairable and many for not too expensive prices, not to mention that they're not even reusable tube launchers.
No.1515
>>1513>except they don't, not reliably against anything that isn't an old tank from before their eraAnd yet they keep taking out T-90s? What exactly is your definition of "old tank?"
No.1516
>>1515>Taking out T-90s There have been no T-90s in Ukraine, proven by further the fact that in Syria TOW2 missiles (comparable to Javelin and NLAW) failed to take them out, yet suddenly start taking them out?
No.1518
>>1516>There have been no T-90s in Ukrainelol
lmao
No.1519
>>1518Those pics are T-72 upgraded variant, you can tell because the front light mounts aren't embedded like a T-90s. Give me some sauce on those pics
No.1521
>>1520Hmmm ok, might be. I still need some sauce on that vid/pics cuz that's suspicious as fuck.
No.1522
>>1521And I mean suspicious because it's a lone tank (no other tech around it at all) and because it has no visible penetration or battle damage, not to mention the lack of identifying numbers or a Z or V symbol on it.
No.1523
>>1521https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.htmlHere's a list documenting confirmed Russian losses during this conflict, with photos for each. At least 17 T-90s have been lost, along with the dozens of T-72 variants.
I think at this point the Syrian T-90 surviving a TOW missile in 2016 was a fluke. It hit the turret in an area without ERA and the gunner fled the vehicle. Range was about 700m and Shtora failed to intercept it.
I'm pretty sure the reason they're having a rough time is because even in 2015 Ukraine was reporting that the Shtora system is ineffective if you fire at it from 900m or closer, and a lot of these shots are MUCH closer than that.
No.1524
>>1523>Here's a list documenting confirmed Russian lossesTo clarify, this lists both Russian and Ukrainian losses, and the 17 T-90s lost is only the ones that we have photo/video evidence of. Numbers on both sides are going to be much higher, especially on the Ukrainian side as Russians don't seem to be as keen on filming everything.
No.1525
>>1524>>1523Almost every tank in that photolist listed as T-90 is a T-72B3, you can tell by the ERA spacing (they have gaps in the shell shape) such as pic related. Besides no location is actually given and at least ONE of those photos is a Ukrainian tank that got taken out in the early days of the conflict, not a Russian one, so not a really reliable source.
>even in 2015 Ukraine was reporting that the Shtora system is ineffectiveIn 2015 the T-90 was nowhere in the area. It's plausible (though still unlikely to me) that the Russian forces deployed T-90s in the current conflict, but before that Russia had no vehicles in the conflict, simply because they were trying to play by the diplomatic rules.
Also Shtora got used in Syria and did just fine if it was turned on. The Shtora you speak of hadn't been turned on and the tank itself had its engine off (you can see the tank being deactivated) likely to conserve fuel and reduce heat signature. The penetration on that T-90 didn't do shit and the Gunner jumped out as a precaution but later returned and drove off. Moreover a different T-90 got hit by several ATGMs from various angles and survived just fine.
No.1562
>Yet another /k/ope thread derailed by facts/uhg/ is on some supercopium levels of shit
https://archived.moe/k/thread/52513503 No.1567
>>1565I'm almost mad that the guy didn't follow the directions on the box and fired it inside the safety range. If he had waited for the tank to pass he could have turned it to shrapnel, but instead he jumped the gun.
Like fuckin cmon, there have literally been more than a hundred tanks destroyed with these things over the past month, he HAD to know that they don't work if you're within 20m.
No.1568
>>1567It did detonate though, and it look like the 3rd floor so from his position it had been roughly 20m, it's not like you can precisely measure the distance
No.1569
>>1568>>1567Confirmed NLAW, and if it is that small damage we see with the fire it could be indicating that the missile did its job and has hit the tank and caused some damage but no explosion.
The NLAW has a firing mode where the missile passes over the target and detonates above it with a small shape charge down directionaly towards the vehicle. Its not always an instantaneous explosion where everything dies. It is also possible it hit but did not detonate, or that it was a glancing blow. But seeing that there is fire coming out of what appears to be a shape charge impact point it is possible the rocket did its job semi-successfully and there could be damage inside the turret, or it could just be neutralized by ERA.
No.1570
>>1569if the rocket had an effect, why didn't the tank speed up, or react in some other way, it just continued rolling down the street as if they didn't notice what had happened.
No.1572
>>1571>getting out to use the machine gun is suicidal.It's 2022 and they can't remotely control the machine gun. This is a big design flaw in MBTs.
They should only build BMPT Terminators.
No.1573
>>1572>It's 2022 and they can't remotely control the machine gun. This is a big design flaw in MBTsIt's a fucking tank from 1989 of the DPR forces that they captured and jury-rigged, modern MBTs like the T-90 DO have remote control machine guns.
No.1624
>>1623Some of this is blatantly obvious "you can get a lucky hit, older tanks are taken out by modern AT systems etc.) but some of this is extrapolation. The part about the NLAW being unable to arm in that distance of the video is POSSIBLE but saying that it'd be an assured kill is nonsense. Even if it had actually detonated and penetrated the angle and part hit is literally the outer hull, at bet it'd put a hole in the back of the turret and through the hull side, missing any crucial parts… maybe damaging the tracks.
Also the part about ERA needing to be hit head on is fucking nonsense, it's the most basic thing in their design.
Moreover the list of tanks taken out is inaccurate, the "19 T90s" is fucking nonsense I've already discussed, most of these "T-90s" are souped up T-72B3s or T-64BVMs or the Ukrainian T-72AMTs that have sheet-metal add ons. Of the T-90s supposedly taken on in Ukraine only 1 of them looks actually taken out, the others just appear abandoned, not destroyed.
No.1690
>>1364There is an entire industry dedicated to maintaining/upgrading the arsenal. They have been ship of Theseus'd since the cold war
No.1692
>>1690American Nukes outside the Trident II is massively outdated and runs on the old big floppy disks.
No.1694
damn nearly 2 months now
i remember thinking russia would just pwn ukraine,
shit’s actually miraculous
No.1697
>>1694I mean in terms of military unity they did, but breaking apart military unity =/= capturing the country.
No.1711
Moon of Alabama post from March 25 on the military situation:
https://archive.ph/QIzBV No.1798
The idea that the Neptun could reach Snake Island is not impossible - 270km from shore, for a 280km range missile -though at the limits of its range but a subsonic cruise missile not being taken out by a cruiser that mounts a massive amount of Air Defense is ridiculous.
https://archive.ph/DqNrP https://naked-science.ru/community/442025/ The relatively intact status of the ship also indicates this: The Neptun is subsonic, but still fast and a massive missile that upon theoretical impact would cause much more damage.
Ergo the ship is going to be raised and if not for a storm, could have reached harbor.
https://archive.ph/oFh1o The current theory is that of diversion/sabotage.
https://archive.ph/64wDe No.1815
so we all can agree this was an utter embarrassment right? hope china's taking notes, cause god, what a disaster
No.1825
>>1815Yeah, Ukraine's forces got smashed for all their bluster.
No.1827
>>1405how has the Ukrainian army largely been defeated?
isnt russia having troubles making any advancements or am I being feed false information by western news sources?
if so can someone give me reliable non-western news sources?
No.1828
>>1345Command chains matters
Intel matters
No.1830
>>1405Russia's winning so hard, they should take over empty fields instead of actual towns and cities because uhhh because STOP BEING A NATO SHILL OK?
No.1831
>>1830>Russia literally took over dozens of towns and cities >the entire Ukrainian army is splintered or holed up<Hurr muh empty fieldzYou're a retard,
Zeethe more.
No.1832
>>1827>how has the Ukrainian army largely been defeated?Most of its tech it taken out, no large army groups remain having being splintered into minor brigades and divisions that are consistently being driven out of the cities.
>isnt russia having troubles making any advancements or am I being feed false information by western news sourcesRussia isn't having troubles moving they're not trying to move much further, they've taken the area they aimed for and are currently mopping up the captured territories rather than pushing on to breaking point.
>reliable non-western news sourcesSouthfront. Use Tor. Also see the Ukraine thread on /edu/ for sources.
No.1834
>>1815Not sure what China can learn to be honest. A war for Taiwan (if it ever happens, China has made the redline VERY explicit) would be over the sea, on the sea and under the sea to neutralize the US Navy before it ever gets to the island itself.
At most, the PLAGF needs to really drill urban warfare in since Taiwan's western-half is near totally urbanized.
No.1835
>>1834>neutralize the US Navywouldnt that escalate into WW3 ? and consequently into full blown nuclear war?
No.1836
>>1835Well yes, it probably would. Although I find that thought process weird, China invading Taiwan is a crisis for American hegemony, but not American existence. Would the US deploy nukes for that? I don't think the US would go nuclear if a CBG was sunk but who knows?
My thought process is simply that since the US Navy is the biggest obstacle to an invasion, China would want to get it out of the way first, otherwise any forces landing on Taiwan are at severe risk of being cutoff.
No.1934
>>1836most of the worlds(>90%) hightech chip production is in taiwan which includes hightech chips for the american military industrial complex
so an attack on taiwan and its chip production facilities is endangering supply lines of american hightech weapons and hightech consumer goods like iphones
so until samsung,intel and tsmc finished construction of their production facilities in america until like 2025/26 american military and public industry is extremely vulnerable to an attack on taiwan
but even those facilities wont be able to produce enough chips for the whole american market also the most modern generations of 3nm and 2nm chips wont be produced outside of taiwan for the forseeable future
No.1936
>>1834China should heavily invest into making the US army blind and deaf. That boat in the Black sea was sunk thanks to US intel.
No.1945
>>1936Agreed, the USA prides itself on its EW and Air Force if nothing else. China needs a way to counter both strongly in the air and on the ground. If this can be done, the US Army will be sitting ducks, they've never had to operate without total air superiority.
At the very least, the PLA needs a way to bleed the USAF/USN like how the PAVN bled the USAF/USN over Vietnam.
No.1947
>>1945>EWwhat's that ?
electronic warfare ?
No.1948
>>1947Yes, it is no lie or exaggeration that NATO's technological advantage gives it a massive edge in EW as can be seen in Ukraine. China is catching up rapidly thanks to its own technological advances, but it may still be years before it reaches parity.
No.1951
>>1948>NATO's technological advantage gives it a massive edge in EW as can be seen in UkraineWhat? where? Russian missiles are taking out Ukrainian targets constantly the Ukrainians literally operate unguided shitty M777s and just shell randomly, and Russian EW is enough to take out a lot of drones and eliminate the advantage they had given.
No.1958
>>1951Russian missiles are bombarding the Ukrainians every day, on the other hand, the Russian Air Force is active primarily East of the Dnieper, and hasn't been seen much in the West outside of the early weeks when a few were shot down. If they were I'm sure Kiev and Lvov would be getting pounded even harder.
Admittedly I don't have any hard proof, I just guessed that NATO EW from across the border is almost certainly helping the Ukrainian air defenses West of the Dnieper. The Ukrainians may not even need to turn on their radar.
No.1960
>>1958The Russians aren't operating there because its too risky given the dense civilian population and the fact that artillery does the same as any bomb. An airstrike is primarily for more priority missions.
> I'm sure Kiev and Lvov would be getting pounded even harder.heh
No.1980
The U.S. is shipping 200 Vietnam-era M113 armored personnel carriers to Ukraine as part of a larger $800 million aid package. The tracked-vehicle will help transport Ukrainian troops from the rear areas of the battlefield to the frontlines – mobility for infantry that is badly needed.
>https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/04/m113-armored-personnel-carriers-are-ready-to-fight-in-ukraine/Tax write off of about $1.500.000 each (Ukraine will pay 3% interest per month on those) and of course AMC or GE will get contracts to replace them with Bradleys, at a bargain cost of $3.500.000 each.
Guess who owns millions in stocks in those companies?
No.1995
>>1980>US is reduced to supplying METAL BOXESI imagine the Russian "Orks" capturing and turning them into Looted Metal Boxes.
No.2004
>>1995I mean the modernizations of M113s are dcent (certainly better than base Bradleys) but they're pretty pathetic compared to any Soviet BMP or BTR contemporary.
No.2061
>>2047>cope mapLMAO fuck off.
No.2062
>>2061So what are you saying exactly? That this map isn't representative of the reality? Is Russia army at Kiev's doors or something? Are you sure that this is the map that is "cope" and not a "you" problem?
No.2080
>>2062No it is not representative of reality
>Is Russia army at Kiev's doors or somethingDid I say that? No, so don't put words in my mouth
>Are you sure that this is the map that is "cope" and not a "you" problem? Yes No.2083
>>2080Why is it not representative of reality?
No.2091
>>2083at least a couple of those "ukrainian counter-offensives and territory regains" demonstrated didn't happen and the large areas that are supposedly not under Russian control in between "le convoy meme" is just false.
No.2168
>>2166Ive been watching footage of this invasion since the start and havent seen one video of air-to-air combat. Ukrainian claims about air victories should always be taken with a grain of salt since their government officials were claiming the Ghost Of Kiev was real for a while
No.2171
>>2170People seem to think that there's some sort of set in stone linear plan that doesn't adjust, rather than a load of plans and contingencies that work with each other based around many of the best big moves you could make i.e. taking Kiev, encircling Donbass. You assault Kiev and you take it at the start, excellent. If you don't take it, use it as an opportunity to shit up their logistics. The plan involves the move and all the outcomes, not the plan and one outcome and the plan is a failure if it doesn't achieve the most optimistic possibility. Actually taking Kiev is incredibly bullish but if you do it before Ukraine properly mobilizes you completely fuck them over, so you may as well attempt it given how close it is to the Belarus border.
>Best case scenario: Kiev taken, Ukraine collapses>Worst case scenario: Main roads between the east and west of the country are blocked, frustrating logistics and mobilizationWhy would you not try it?
No.2173
>>2171Yes. It seems like a lot of people do not understand this.
No.2177
>>2176Hate to say it but Marichka is kind of cute
No.2179
>>2177Mmm not really
>>2170VDV did pretty fine for an isolated unit, obviously they took losses, its a war, but for the scale of the operation their losses had been fairly small, especially considering they only had light armor and armament compared to regular units. That said they took several key areas almost immediately, including an airfield, and acted as area denial for Ukraine's troops. It is very unlikely they intended to take Kiev, based on the methods they are going by (very limited strikes, ignoring smaller units to take out larger open concentrations of troops, etc.) It's glaringly obvious that if Russia had intended to steamroll Kiev, they could have, but the only way to do this is at the cost of either immense Russian casualties in urban combat, or immense civilian casualties through artillery barrage repressing the military units hiding in Kiev's apartment complexes. Neither is particularly favorable in the long-run.
No.2180
>>2176ofc azoids would like a mid muscle girl like patty
No.2181
>>2180Being a muscle girl is an instant +3 to +5 so it's difficult for one to be mid tbqh
No.2182
>>2181to clarify, she's a mid amongst muscular women. Jessica Buettner, Vladislava Galagan or even Monica Granda are better but are only known to Crumbian freaks like myself
No.2183
>>2180isnt she a midget too lmao
No.2185
>>2180Imagine not liking musclegirls, what a faggot
No.2187
>>2179>It is very unlikely they intended to take Kiev, based on the methods they are going byHave you considered that they did intend to take Kiev, but they didn't expect such heavy resistance from the Ukrainians? Almost everyone thought Russia would roll over Ukraine in a few days, it wouldn't be surprising if the Russian leadership thought it would like Crimea 2014 where they would just waltz in with little resistance. If they were actually expecting a tough fight they might've sent more heavily armed regular Ground Force units to Northern Ukraine
No.2249
>>1405>Since the Ukrainian army has largely been defeated>>1406>The Ukrainian army as a unified group is mostly brokenaged like fine milk lol
that's why I love slower boards, nowhere to hide z-cucks
No.2265
>>2262I'm pretty doubtful because stats-wise the HIMARS is broadly equivalent to the BM-27 Uragan which Ukraine already has large numbers of, so even if its effective its unlikely to be any more effective than what Ukraine already has.
In other words, I'm sure the Ukrainians appreciate it, but its no more a gamechanger than the Javelin was.
No.2285
>>2187The Russian military nor government ever made a claim that they intended to take Kiev "in 2/3/4/ weeks" that's the MSM in non-Russian countries that parroted this narrative. This idea of "stronger resistance than expected" is also inane. People seem to fucking forget that Russia is utilizing roughly 15% of its armed forces… against the largest army in Europe outside of Russia itself.
No.2286
>>2285>The Russian military nor government ever made a claim that they intended to take Kiev "in 2/3/4/ weeks" that's the MSM in non-Russian countries that parroted this narrative.What the Russian military and government does or doesn't claim isn't indicative of anything, since they lie all the time. First they claimed they weren't going to invade at all and that their military build up on the Ukrainian border was just a training exercise. Then they claimed the withdrawal from Northern Ukraine and from Snake Island were both "gestures of good will". They also claimed a few months ago that they would hit decision-making centers in Kiev if Ukraine kept attacking Russian soil (Ukraine is still doing this and no decision-making centers have been hit)
>This idea of "stronger resistance than expected" is also inane.Why? Even the US intelligence apparatus, which fully supports Ukraine, thought Kiev would fall in just a few days
>People seem to fucking forget that Russia is utilizing roughly 15% of its armed forces… against the largest army in Europe outside of Russia itself.Yes and it was a mistake on Russia's part to not commit more troops to the invasion
No.2288
>>2286>What the Russian military and government does or doesn't claim isn't indicative of anything Yes it is, given that you're arguing against a strawman of "b-but Rusha didn't do the thing CNN told me it said, so that must mean its having a hard tiem!"
>since they lie all the time If anything Russia has been the most honest party in the entire conflict, while Press from the West has done nothing but create lie after lie, using photos from donetsk of Ukrainian bombings and claiming them as Russian, denying the existence of government sanctioned Nazis in Ukraine, ignoring Victoria Nuland's self-admission of Bio-labs, ignoring the United States' role in an illegal color revolution that began this entire mess and more. Russia's reporting has only had the tendency to be overly mocking of Zelensky and Ukraine, and has not been lying. The only thing they do even remotely close to a "lie" is to not speak of topics or report them for some time, such as not reporting initial casualty ratios until the second week, something done because of the lack of complete information available.
>First they claimed they weren't going to invade at all and that their military build up on the Ukrainian border was just a training exercise. Because it had been. Things changed after Zelensky, yet again refused to make peace and stop the Ukrainian military from terrorizing its people that sought independence, and after the Ukrainians prepared to gain nuclear military power using US help and built up forces for months in preparation to annihilate Donbass and keep going into Russia. Not only did this violate international nuclear treaties, but is a direct threat on Russia, as nuclear missiles in Ukraine are very close to it, much closer than any Pershing or Jupiter missiles in the past or present.
>Then they claimed the withdrawal from Northern Ukraine and from Snake Island were both "gestures of good will" Yes, because the Russian side offered Zelensky a peace deal, because the entire point of the operation had been a slap to the face for Ukraine - wake up and clear your head! - but Zelensky, too deep in this quagmire, pushed on, and his SBU murdered and attacked those politicians involved in Ukraine's peace delegation. After this occurred Russia took back the territory in days.
>They also claimed a few months ago that they would hit decision-making centers in Kiev if Ukraine kept attacking Russian soil (Ukraine is still doing this and no decision-making centers have been hit)1) Source on this claim? And no, a western article supposedly quoting Putin is not a source, provide first-hand video of this claim.
2) Except this is blatantly incorrect. Russia has destroyed large numbers of Kiev's military bases and depots, barracks, airfields and headquarters, essentially taking out Ukraine's ability to use its airforce and provide steady ammunition supplies or commands.
>Even the US intelligence apparatus, which fully supports Ukraine, thought Kiev would fall in just a few daysNo, they didn't. The press did a bunch of scare stories to drum up Western hysteria into supporting Kiev to "prevent their collapse"
>it was a mistake on Russia's part to not commit more troops to the They're plowing through Ukraine like an Icebreaker through ice-sheets. It's not a speed-boat, but its making steady and strong headway. No.2289
>>2288>Yes it is, given that you're arguing against a strawman of "b-but Rusha didn't do the thing CNN told me it said, so that must mean its having a hard tiem!"Retreating from Kiev after a month of fighting isn't a sign they had an easy time.
>If anything Russia has been the most honest party in the entire conflict, while Press from the West has done nothing but create lie after lieIncredibly low bar, and I never said the West was more honest.
>Because it had been. Things changed after Zelensky, yet again refused to make peace and stop the Ukrainian military from terrorizing its people that sought independence, and after the Ukrainians prepared to gain nuclear military power using US help and built up forces for months in preparation to annihilate Donbass and keep going into Russia. Not only did this violate international nuclear treaties, but is a direct threat on Russia, as nuclear missiles in Ukraine are very close to it, much closer than any Pershing or Jupiter missiles in the past or present. They were still saying it was a training exercise just a week before the invasion. This was a while after NATO rejected Russia's security guarantees and Putin would've already known by then that Ukraine wasn't going to stop doing any of the things you said. The training exercise claim was a ruse.
>Yes, because the Russian side offered Zelensky a peace deal, because the entire point of the operation had been a slap to the face for Ukraine - wake up and clear your head! - but Zelensky, too deep in this quagmire, pushed on, and his SBU murdered and attacked those politicians involved in Ukraine's peace delegation. After this occurred Russia took back the territory in days. If that's what is was, why did Russia use the same "gesture of good will" excuse after they withdrew from Snake Island on June 30th? At that point negotiations were completely mired and Russia hadn't made any recent peace deal offers. It's clearly a propaganda claim Russia makes whenever they suffer a setback. And they did not retake any of the territory they ceded after their first "good will gesture", there are no Russian troops in Northern Ukraine anymore.
>1) Source on this claim? And no, a western article supposedly quoting Putin is not a source, provide first-hand video of this claim. Here is a Russian source with the Russian Ministry of Defense spokesman saying it on video:
https://rg.ru/2022/04/13/minoborony-rf-obektami-atak-mogut-stat-centry-priniatiia-reshenij-v-kieve.html>2) Except this is blatantly incorrect. Russia has destroyed large numbers of Kiev's military bases and depots, barracks, airfields and headquarters, essentially taking out Ukraine's ability to use its airforce and provide steady ammunition supplies or commands. I never said they didn't hit military infrastructure in Kiev like factories, they haven't hit any "decision-making centers" in Kiev, which is what they promised to do. And if they're already doing this like you said, why is Russia still using it as an ultimatum? Recently Medvedev used the exact same threat, but this time if Ukraine attacked Russian territory with US-supplied HIMARS
https://tass.com/politics/1459891>No, they didn't.They did though, and they are still saying they did even though Kiev isn't in danger of collapsing at the moment
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/u-s-intelligence-agencies-review-what-they-got-wrong-on-russias-invasion-of-ukraine>They're plowing through Ukraine like an Icebreaker through ice-sheetsIn the Donbass, yes. But in Southern Ukraine it is a stalemate and the Northern Ukraine front was a failure
No.2291
>Retreating from Kiev after a month of fighting isn't a sign they had an easy time
<a month
1) incorrect
2) That area is by the Belorus border on the grounds of Chernobyl, radioactive fires on that territory are a major threat Europe, thus Russian and Ukrainian military had a ceasefire and jointly monitored and defended the area.
>Incredibly low bar, and I never said the West was more honest
False, deflection and goalpost shifting
> still saying it was a training exercise just a week before the invasion
Anon, do you understand the meaning of "training exercise" in geopolitics? It has always been used as a demonstrative warning and method of having the military put on alert and so be ready to move than during normal times, this is not a 'ruse' as you claim. Had Ukraine not continued to escalate, it is very much possible Russia would not have begun direct fighting.
>a while after NATO rejected Russia's security guarantees and Putin would've already known by then that Ukraine wasn't going to stop doing any of the things
Until recently Russia and the EU continued to try and discuss the terms of Minsk 2, only flouting them relatively recently.
>why did Russia use the same "gesture of good will" excuse after they withdrew from Snake Island
It's not the same. The area is a major shipping lane, especially for grain and Ukraine and Russia came to an agreement on removing shipping embargo and grain trade. The Island itself is not under Ukrainian control. It no longer has strategic value, Ukraine can't access it, nor could it be any use for them anymore, so there is no point in keeping a garrison there that gets peppered by isolated missiles at random and for no purpose.
>there are no Russian troops in Northern Ukraine anymore
Utter nonsense, Kharkov is in Northern Ukraine and is encircled and being taken. the majority of Donbass is in Russian control, and the over-all area under Russian control is much larger.
>It's clearly a propaganda claim Russia makes whenever they suffer a setback
No, it is not. Ukraine's military has been cracked apart and is utterly lacking coordination, having numerous incidents of friendly fire and resorting to hiding in civilian areas; any desperate method to avoid being utterly crushed outright.
>they did not retake any of the territory they ceded after their first "good will gesture"
LMAO
>they haven't hit any "decision-making centers" in Kiev
They did, as I cited, or are you playing semantics that they're not striking embassies and other government buildings.
>why is Russia still using it as an ultimatum
It's not an ultimatum though?
>this time if Ukraine attacked Russian territory with US-supplied HIMARS
And they haven't attacked using those systems on Russian territory
>They did though
Their PR made a hysterical claim for the purpose of provoking a desperate reaction, successfully so, that isn't what they actually thought, if they had, then they'd have just abandoned Ukraine as their failed CIA project, just like any other failed project of theirs, pulling out their people and more.
>Southern Ukraine it is a stalemate
<Literally steamrolled Mariupol, Kherson and Melitopol and the majority of Azov battalion
<Not far from Odessa and moving closer
<Most of Ukraine cut off from coast.
>Northern Ukraine front was a failure
<Kharkov already being taken
<Sumy front starting again
<Northern Ukraine is almost devoid of Ukrainian military
<Nearly every military depot, airfield and HQ, East of Kiev has been annihilated, leaving isolated army groups that are harassed and lacking in supplies.
Ok lmao
I'm not even going into the British estimates of Ukraine losing 20,000 troops a month, exceeding Russian losses and abandoning thousands of examples of tech and weapons.
Finally see the maps of the past 6 months or so, and see the enormous increase and cohesion of territorial areas controlled by the LDNR and Russian forces.
No.2292
>>2289A final addition
All the Russian goals for the operation are achieved: The Ukrainian capabilities to conduct Nazi ethnic cleansing in Donbas for the present and short-term future is being destroyed. The Ukrainian puppet state can continue to take in all the NATO-country tax-payer funded missiles they can handle; their capacity to conduct offensive operations in Donbas is gone. NATO membership is no longer an option, Donbass' independence is defended, Crimea remains Russian, Azov is destroyed, Ukraine is denied the ability to carry, make or utilize Nuclear arms.
In 4 months they have gained the control of an area around the size of France against the largest army in Europe outside of Russia itself - a 300,000 man army that has resorted to conscripting women as of June, because male conscription has failed to halt Russia. So yes, Russia has been doing very well.
On South Ukraine: on top of most of it being under Russian control outside Odessa, the only remaining large port in Ukrainian control (even then Odessa is unstable and has many people supporting Russia and the DNR that are operating as underground groups). Russia strikes Odessa and its arms imports with impunity, taking out delivery after delivery and capturing or destroying thousands of arms such as the memed Stingers, Javelins and NLAWs on top of the recently sent HIMARs, Caesar artillery, M777s and more, many at the train stations they are delivered at.
https://southfront.org/russian-strike-destroyed-harpoon-anti-ship-missiles-in-ukraines-odessa/ Just on the example of the Javelin, even those that gets used are a massive loss of money. A new javelin system + missiles is more expensive than a new T-72 or T-62 back when they were building them and those tanks outrange a Javelin using HE-Frag or HEAT or ATGM. The Javelin has a limited range on open spaces that have clearly defined targets they have better chances, but tank cannons outrange them if spotted, they cannot afford to use fire-and-forget if the target is not designated and to do so they must come into range of the tank's guns. According the spotter of "le Canadian super sniper" Wali, codenamed "Shadow" he tried for 3 weeks to hunt Russian tanks in Ukraine using Javelin but could never get close enough to get a shot. He lost half his team to Russian tank fire and spent a lot of his time there dodging near misses.
HIMARS:
https://eadaily.com/ru/news/2022/07/16/amerikanskaya-rszo-himars-popala-v-ruki-rossiyskih-voennyh-russkaya-vesna?utm_source=smi2&utm_term=de37c4479d0c7a748e2ce019f90fcd8e&utm_content=91655 CAESAR:
https://rusvesna.su/news/1656257094M777 and others:
https://archive.ph/XFSHv ,
https://archive.ph/SszD2 ,
https://archive.ph/qSo0VOn Chernobyl and the threat of the threat of radioactive fire
https://southfront.org/state-agency-for-chernobyl-management-calls-situation-critical-as-fire-edges-2km-to-nuclear-reactor/ And as I pointed out, Russia is moving in Northern Ukraine again and is taking out decision making centres
>VDV Spetsnaz taking Gostomel airport (NEW)https://files.catbox.moe/9iacw2.mp4>Kalibr strike on UKR air force command (Vinnista)https://files.catbox.moe/7zs5tm.mp4 No.2293
>>2262Its got slightly better accuracy and range than the Uragan, (though the BM-30 Smerch is better still), but not by much and Russia has already destroyed or captured 3 of them, and destroyed the ammunition depot holding their ammunition. Their main threat is if they get used against Russian troops due to the heavier missile compared to BM27 rockets.
No.2294
>>2249>aged like fine milk lol<3 months after the conflict began Ukraine has resorted to forced conscription of women as of June<British media group Daily Mail has estimated that Ukraine has lost 20,000 troops a month, given the 4+ months of fighting, that's over 80,000 soldiers lost. Ukraine's military at the start of the operation had been 300,000 troops, so that is nearly 1/3 of the Ukrainian army lost. Ukrainian ammo depots, airfields and large groups get air-striked, forcing them to be splintered into small, poorly coordinated groups. <Russia currently controls most of South Ukraine, most of Donbass - an area around the size of France - in only 4 months and without using burger shock n' awe tactics. So cope more /uhg/ tourist
Z No.2298
>>2291>2) That area is by the Belorus border on the grounds of Chernobyl, radioactive fires on that territory are a major threat Europe, thus Russian and Ukrainian military had a ceasefire and jointly monitored and defended the area. >>1406your point? There was fighting everywhere else and the Russians withdrew after about a month
>False, deflection and goalpost shiftingYou were the only one that brought up the Western press
>Anon, do you understand the meaning of "training exercise" in geopolitics? It has always been used as a demonstrative warning and method of having the military put on alert and so be ready to move than during normal times, this is not a 'ruse' as you claim. Had Ukraine not continued to escalate, it is very much possible Russia would not have begun direct fighting. It was a ruse because they said it was a training exercise up until the last minute. They had other training exercises in previous years near Ukraine without invading.
>Until recently Russia and the EU continued to try and discuss the terms of Minsk 2, only flouting them relatively recently. Yes
>there is no point in keeping a garrison there that gets peppered by isolated missiles at random and for no purpose.You just described why Russia left Snake Island, because they kept getting fired at by shells and missiles. They didn't leave as a gesture of good will, they lied when they said that
>Utter nonsense, Kharkov is in Northern Ukraine and is encircled and being taken. the majority of Donbass is in Russian control, and the over-all area under Russian control is much larger. The maps you posted show that Russia pulled back from Kharkov. They were closer to Kharkov in February than they are now. Kharkov is right next to the Russian border and the Russians haven't taken it after 5 months. And yes the Donbass is mostly under control of Russia and the republics no one said otherwise.
>No, it is not. Ukraine's military has been cracked apart and is utterly lacking coordination, having numerous incidents of friendly fire and resorting to hiding in civilian areas; any desperate method to avoid being utterly crushed outright. People have been saying that about the Ukrainian forces seen back in March
>>1405 >>1406 . If that's true then how are they still fighting?
>>they did not retake any of the territory they ceded after their first "good will gesture" >LMAOThe maps you posted show that the areas Russia left in the north after their "good will gesture" are under Ukrainian control. You said they retook the territory after negotiations fell apart, what territory did they retake?
>They did, as I cited, or are you playing semantics that they're not striking embassies and other government buildings.You literally didn't cite anything, you just said Russia was hitting Ukrainian military infrastructure which no one disputes. And yes, Medvedev said in that link I posted that the "decision-making centers" are the Ukrainian government buildings in Kiev, which they haven't striked.
>It's not an ultimatum though? If it's not an ultimatum then what is it then? And why does Russia keep using it as a threat if, according to you, they're already doing it anyway?
>And they haven't attacked using those systems on Russian territory No but they did attack Russian territory with other weapons, and Russia didn't retaliate by attacking decision-making centers in Kiev like they promised, so they lied.
>that isn't what they actually thought, if they had, then they'd have just abandoned Ukraine as their failed CIA projectWhy would they just abandon Ukraine and not foment a guerrilla insurgency there? Did you miss the article about the CIA training Ukrainian paramilitary forces in preparation for the invasion?
https://news.yahoo.com/cia-trained-ukrainian-paramilitaries-may-take-central-role-if-russia-invades-185258008.html There is a precedent for this if you look back to the CIA's "stay-behind networks" and Operation Gladio, which was their plan to combat a Soviet invasion and occupation of Western Europe.
>Literally steamrolled Mariupol, Kherson and Melitopol and the majority of Azov battalion>Not far from Odessa and moving closer >Most of Ukraine cut off from coast. Mariupol isn't part of the southern front, it's part of the Donbass, and it wasn't "steamrolled" it was a drawn out siege. And anyway it is a stalemate because the frontline between Russian-controlled Kherson and Ukrainian-controlled Mykolaiv has been static for a long time now. Russia isn't "moving closer" to Odessa like you said, to do that they have to take Mykolaiv (which they tried to do at the start of the invasion but failed). The maps you posted show that the Russians were advancing towards Mykolaiv in February but then pulled back.
>Kharkov already being taken>Sumy front starting again>Northern Ukraine is almost devoid of Ukrainian military>Nearly every military depot, airfield and HQ, East of Kiev has been annihilated, leaving isolated army groups that are harassed and lacking in supplies.Again, the maps you posted show they aren't taking Kharkov, they pulled back from it. The maps also show that Sumy Oblast is still completely controlled by Ukraine. If Ukraine's military infrastructure is almost completely wiped out east of Kiev, why aren't they just melting away like the Iraqis in 2003?
No.2299
>>2292>All of the Russian goals for the operation are achievedSo why are they still fighting
>In 4 months they have gained control of an area around the size of FranceFrance is 210'000 square miles. Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia Oblasts combined are around 40'000 square miles. And where's your source that they're conscripting women now?
>On South Ukraine: on top of most of it being under Russian control outside OdessaAnd outside of Mykolaiv and Zaporizhzhia
>HIMARSThis source is just a Russian telegram channel saying they captured a HIMARS, with no photo or video evidence.
>And as I pointed out, Russia is moving in Northern Ukraine again>>VDV Spetsnaz taking Gostomel airport (NEW)Do you not know how to read dates? This video literally shows the date when all this footage was taken, which was back in February. This isn't proof at all that the Russians are moving into Northern Ukraine again.
>>Kalibr strike on UKR air force command (Vinnista)Again, this isn't a strike on a decision-making center IN KIEV, which is what they said they would do. No one said they aren't striking Ukrainian HQs in other areas
No.2327
>>2297South Front does daily map updates, See
>>2291 as an example of roughly 4-months difference.
No.2328
>>2299>So why are they still fighting Because they're mopping up the internals of the regions and taking the remaining territories they are aiming for, suppressing the Ukrainian military bit by bit, as stated before, using velvet gloves to try and minimize civilian casualties and remove Nazis.
>where's your source that they're conscripting women now?1) you don't provide jack shit for sources yourself
2) They'd been doing it since December
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/12/30/ukra-d30.html https://www.rt.com/russia/557750-ukraine-draft-convicts-women/ People literally hide from recruiters to avoid being drafted.
>This source is just a Russian telegram channel saying they captured a HIMARS, with no photo or video evidence <If its not le based ukrops saying it its not realAnon, there's literally video and photos of the HIMARS being destroyed and the idea of them taking a HIMARS system after capturing thousands of examples of "Western Aid" in the form of APCs, Artillery, Javelins and more, makes it plenty plausible.
>This isn't proof at all that the Russians are moving into Northern Ukraine again.Anon I….
>his isn't a strike on a decision-making center IN KIEVPlaying semantics and ignoring the hits IN KIEV that have happened repeatedly, is fucking obtuse denial.
No.2337
>>2328>they're mopping up Seems like they've been mopping up since a few months now, so tell me when does this war end?
No.2344
>>2337>circular shitting again Nah, go fuck yourself and stop playing video games you're confusing your Clash of Clans for real life.
No.2345
Embedding error.
>>2298>your point? <bl bla bla I can't readMy point is made, if you don't understand it, then you're too young for this site
>the only one that brought up the Western press You literally use their rhetoric, you obtuse tit.
>It was a ruse because they said it was a training exercise up until the last minute Already explained this, you're incorrect, learn geopolitics better. The idea that something like that is a ruse is fucking laughable to any special operative or experienced politician, but then again Westerners don't tend to think critically and hypocritically take things both at face value, yet can push hysteria about an incoming invasion any moment now, since 2014.
>They had other training exercises in previous years near Ukraine without invadingBecause the threat abated or the target of the demonstration hadn't been Ukraine, you nitwit.
>didn't leave as a gesture of good will No, faggot. They left it as neutral ground, because it no longer has strategic impact on operations, so wasting troops to sit on the island is pointless. The only purpose they'd serve is to enforce a blockade on grain transport routes in the sea, but Russia and Ukraine made an agreement over that, before they left snake island.
>They were closer to Kharkov in February than they are now They're literally surrounding Kharkov, you're making no sense
>Kharkov is right next to the Russian border LMAO no, you have no perspective of distance on maps do you? >the Donbass is mostly under control of Russia and the republics no one said otherwise reallydude.jpg
>If that's true then how are they still fighting Did you not read the second post you linked, idiot? It literally explains the disunified assaults. Ukraine's army numbers at ~700,000 people against Russias ~200,000 troops committed, yet Russia has lost (according to the CIA) 15,000 troops dead and roughly 3x injured (totaling at 60,000), and Ukraine has 200,000 casualties as of June. Ukraine is losing troops massively, pulling forced conscription, women and condemned criminals, such as rapists and murderers, to fight, in ad hoc units because they literally have no unity and are just tossing troops into a grinder in the hopes of slowing Russia. And Russia has slowed to methodically eliminate this wave of people.
>literally didn't cite anything sourced, semantics.
>Medvedev said in that link I posted that the "decision-making centers" are the Ukrainian government buildings in Kiev, which they haven't strikedAnd as I told you, that was said specifically if HIMARS are used against Russian territory
>not an ultimatum It is a warning of tit for tat.
>why does Russia keep using it as a threatThey said it 2x and the Medvedev thing is specifically in regards to HIMARS, you're intentionally ignoring that.
>they did attack Russian territory with other weapons, and Russia didn't retaliate by attacking decision-making centers in Kiev like they promisedThey did and you're just playing semantics, as I've explained for the dozenth time.
>Why would they just abandon Ukraine Because R&D. Just as in Iran, or S.Vietnam or other countries that did not successfully maintain themselves, or like Afghanistan could never stop the fighting, then they'd pull out their resources so as to not waste them, leaving maybe some sleeper agents.
>not foment a guerrilla insurgency there<implying that'd work Anon, this isn't Afghanistan, such groups are not going to survive long.
>the CIA training Ukrainian paramilitary forces in preparation for the invasion And? The CIA trained forces for Bay of Pigs, and dozens of other operations that failed.
>Operation GladioAnon, I literally wrote the effort posts on these CIA operations in /edu/ I KNOW the capabilities of the CIA in regards to such actions and the situation is not the same. This isn't like "Soviet Ukraine after 1945" This is going to be closer to "East Germany after 1945". Not to mention that the "stay-behinds" were only expected to cause strife, and not actually significantly impact things.
>Mariupol isn't part of the southern front, it's part of the Donbass>Yes it is part of the Southern front, since it is in the SOUTH of Ukraine, and had not been in Donbass control at all. >drawn out siege The actual city got taken with high-speed building sweeping, and the only siege had been at Azovstal, you can see it in the video interviews by Patrick Lancaster, WarGonzo and Graham Phillips among others.
>it is a stalemate because the frontline between Russian-controlled Kherson and Ukrainian-controlled Mykolaiv has been static for a long time now Because Russia has been digging in and rotating forces in preparation, and ahs been creeping on as they do so.
>the Russians were advancing towards Mykolaiv in February but then pulled back. Because they hadn't taken out Mariupol.
>maps also show that Sumy Oblast is still completely controlled by Ukraine Didn't say it isn't, I said they're beginning to move in that front again
>hy aren't they just melting away like the Iraqis in 2003 Because it's not a flat desert, and if you recall 2003, they took the cities by bombing them into utter rubble and killing people indiscriminately to eliminate threats fast. As I said repeatedly, Ukraine's army as a unified force is busted, it's not a united army in the modern sense, it's a bunch of loose groups, divisions at most, that fight on their section of the front but have little intercommunication, and cannot fight 1 on 1 in pitched battle and have to rely on ambushes and guerilla tactics, because they don't have the infrastructure or unity to do proper maneuvers.
No.2357
>>2356Everyone claims that 'rusha sed it'd take Kiev in 3 dayz' or some shit like that, even though only some Russian supporters and NATO PR 'analysts' claimed that.
Russia isn't losing or doing badly and minor losses are offset by the overall gains.
https://southfront.org/us-marine-corps-officer-expresses-admiration/ No.2433
ASU-85 Self-propelled gun used by Ukraine. A former exponate of a memorial in Poltava. It´s a desant-VDV vehicle used prior to the BMD series as fire support and transport.
-
https://rusvesna.su/news/1663425116 -
https://rg.ru/2022/09/19/ukrainskie-boeviki-sniali-s-pedestala-redkuiu-desantnuiu-asu-85.html A replacement for the ASU-57 of the 1950s Soviet Union, the ASU-85 today can function as second-line mobile fire support or acting as a movable pillbox to reinforce a defensive position and ambushes, the extremely low profile helps. The 85mm gun is capable of knocking out any Russian light armor even frontally, and it can serve an anti-infantry or general artillery role with HE shells. It also has HEAT-FS rounds which could even penetrate the sides of earlier MBTs like the T-62M. Vietnam returned theirs into service back in 2015.
The real problem here is locating 85mm ammunition in Ukraine as their only options are going to be a couple small stockpiles.
Unique IPs: 50