What can we learn from the Russian invasion of Ukraine and this example of relatively modern warfare? Strategy, tactics, operations, geopolitical responses, information warfare, civilian pov and response. Anything related. Not the thread to talk about "who is in the right".
>>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.
>>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.
>>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
>>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 ?
>>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.
>>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.
>>1398It's good in general no? Just another way to attack them.
>>1399Yup, why not both
>>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
>>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.
>>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?
>>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
>>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.
>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 >>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.
>>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.
>>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
>>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.
>>1516>There have been no T-90s in Ukrainelol
lmao
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
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>>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?
>>1345Command chains matters
Intel matters
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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
>>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.
>>1945>EWwhat's that ?
electronic warfare ?
>>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.
>>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
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?
>>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 >>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?
>>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.
>>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
>>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.
>>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
>>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. >>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
>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.
>>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 >>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 >>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?
>>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
>>2297South Front does daily map updates, See
>>2291 as an example of roughly 4-months difference.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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/ 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.
>>2618Dumb blogger cope, also I can't take seriously those right wingers writing in "memes".
Some of the seven advantages he listed for Russia are debatable to say the least, but he also says time is on Russia's side… but is it really?
The US is ramping up weapon production and training of Ukraine troops while giving them more and more capable systems. What happens for Russia in 2024-25 when they have to face divisions of professionally trained soldiers fielding Abrams mbts, when their supply lines are systematically being torn apart by long range precision munitions, when their fleet can't operate in the Black Sea and when their cruise missiles can't penetrate Ukraine airspace without being intercepted anymore?
And when you compare the economic status of both countries both are on lifeline, only Ukraine has the benefit of virtually infinite western gibs to keep things afloat while the neoliberal leaders of Russia are forced to nationalize, and there's only so much capitalists they can throw of balconies and requisitions they can make before seriously stirring internal troubles.
Nothing is certain for now, all we can say is that it's a strategical stalemate and there are too many factors to safely predict one outcome or the other.
The big lesson of this war is don't be an idealist, whatever your interpretation is (inter imperialist conflict, war of conquest, struggle for multipolarity etc..) forget morals, don't put your feelings in the way of hard data, believing x is bad and y is good doesn't have to make you fall for a biased narrative.
>>2626>The US is ramping up weapon production Except the cannot exceed a certain production level in peacetime and many production lines are irretrievable, as they are destroyed after production ends, that's the reason no Bradleys can be made from scratch, their production line is gone as part of a federal law that demands termination of production lines that have ended, same reason the F-22 can never be renewed. Moreover officials have stated that nearly a decade's worth of Javelin production has been expended and more in terms of Stinger MANPADs. The latter is especially funny considering that Stingers are failing to do anything outside of superficial damage to a couple choppers and Su-25s.
>training Ukrainian troopsTakes months at minimum and has had little effect considering that US aid has been drone striked and counter-artilleried to hell. The US has expended over a hundred billion on Ukraine in the past year, and the impact has been minimal.
>is it reallyYes, Russian economy and military are only gaining from this, their losses are paltry compared to Ukraine despite a massive numbers disadvantage and the conflict has made the Russian economy ramp up to meet the demands put on people. It has weeded out closeted liberals and 5th columnists and forced them out of the country helping clean out some corruption and plenty of foreign spying.
>the economic status of both countries both are on lifeline Laughable nonsense
>What happens for Russia in 2024-25 LMAO
>face divisions of professionally trained soldiers fielding Abrams mbts NATO training is a fucking shit show, their standards have gone plummeting since the USSR fell because everyone relaxed their anuses. Training exercises in Britain expended reserve ammunition in a week of fighting a scenario of open conventional conflict against Russia. Germany literally has most of its tanks be older Leo-IIA4s and A5s that are very vulnerable to current Russian tanks and more importantly even older Soviet ATGM systems as Turkey's losses prove. On top of that, even before the Ukraine war the army critically lacked guns to the point that training involved black-painted broom-sticks to imitate.
Abrams had horrific losses to old RPG-7s and Konkurs ATGMs, literal 1970s anti-tank rockets that are outdated as hell. Moreover the Abrams is shit, it's a massive air target and only the USA's enormous air force and the facing of much smaller and poorly armed forces has kept them from being open targets to strike fighters in the past. Their performance against tanks is also comical as only the latest M1A2s are actually a match for current Russian or even late-80s Soviet tanks, and the majority of tanks in US use are M1A1s. Not to mention enormous numbers of them have been outright mothballed or decommissioned.
>their supply lines are systematically being torn apart by long range precision munitions Nice fantasy NATOid, the irony is that is exactly the thing happening to Ukraine right now.
>their fleet can't operate in the Black Sea LMAO, the Black Sea belongs to Turkey and Russia and the USA cannot insert a carrier into that area. The Ukrainian navy is nonexistent and the ships proposed to be sent are held back because the Brits fear they'll be sunk in Odessa harbor before they can even be transferred officially.
>when their cruise missiles can't penetrate Ukraine airspace without being intercepted anymore There exists no SAM system on earth currently capable of taking out hypersonic missiles. Only Russia and China have actual hypersonic missiles in production. The USA still can't do that. US air defense is horrible. The older missiles in Russian use are upper-super sonic and are considered some of the most advanced systems to exist even today. The subsonic kalibr has been almost completely unimpeded in Ukraine against their air defenses. You can't set up an advanced air defense if they get destroyed on arrival.
The Stinger is outdated a fuck and even brand new barely took out early Mi-24s and soon defeated by countermeasures developed back in the 80s and still effective today. The THAAD is a strategic system for intercepting ballistic missiles and strategic bombers primarily and is not something for wide export. The Patriot has failed repeatedly. Back in the 80s they couldn't take out a single Scud missile launched by Saddam at Israel and similarly failed against terrorist missiles launched in Saudia Arabia. The NASAAMS is the only system of any note and its not even a US only development. I'm not even mentioning that these things take years of training to be any good and are massive beacons to any anti-RADAR system, good luck avoiding a Zircon from your fixed SAM position. Panzer Gepard? A fucking joke that is barely any better than a Shilka a decade its senior and having terrible firing rate for an AAA system today. Russia had turned the Bayraktar meme and aped the Ukrainians by destroying most of their large drones an using theirs in massive attacks that Ukrainian SAM systems including US deliveries have failed to intercept.
>Ukraine has the benefit of virtually infinite western gibs >"I can't take seriously those right wingers writing in "memes""<Types out in memesOk /uhg/ fag
>forget morals Yes Himmler-san.
TL;DR: You've said nothing but fantasy and middling generic liberal tripe spouted by NATO sock-puppets. I'm sure the Ghost of Khuev thanks you.
I tapped out of the war threads like 2 or 3 months in but I'm glad to see ziggas still cope by responding to completely normal posts with unhinged wall of texts calling out the imaginary NATOids like my man here
>>2635I really wanna know what ziggaz make of Russia's recent losses but I don't feel like sorting through the actual shit that are the Ukraine threads to find out lmao
>>2635I'm not gonna answer point by point because I'm not that much of a weapon nerd. But why "LMAO" at the question of how the war will go in 2024-2025? Even if you believe Russia will probably break that stalemate that's something to think about, military thinking is about hoping for the best and planning for the worst after all.
It's also pretty deranged to think Russia economy and military are gaining from this, besides their GDP shrinking and the hundreds of thousands of people not being in the workforce anymore but on the front line or outside the country, they lost a lot of their most elite troops in the beginning of the war, a few thousands tanks and mbts, more than a hundred aircraft, their flagship is on the bottom of the black sea etc. The only things they really gained is some (industrial) territory and military experience, but at the expense of being sanctioned left and right, and their military being revealed as a potemkine force that had no right being ranked 2nd in the world.
Now there's talks of Russia closing the border to male citizens, launching another wave of mobilization and maybe declaring martial law for the beginning of the year, which imo they would certainly need to break the stalemate. Only their troops seem to be facing shell rationing and moral issues while there is a rivalry between the army and the pmc so I'm skeptic about their capability to mount successful large offensives in the coming months.
>>2636 LMAO ok samefag, you totally didn't lurk here for a response to make the same salty, 'no u' reply
>Retar text wall LMAO, because
>>2626 isn't a textwall?
Also pic rel.
>zigga<n-no I'm not another centrist closeted NATO stan really! Cope
>>2637>I'm not gonna answer point by point because I'm not that much of a weapon nerd Translation: I don't know what I'm talking about, but I'll make a BS response anyhow.
>why "LMAO" at the question of how the war will go in 2024-2025 The idea of it going to 2025 is laughable. It's barely 2023 and Ukraine has had 8 years of training assistance an prep-time, as former presidents Merkel, Poroshenko and Holland mentioned in regards to the Minsk Agreements being a delay tactic. Even after all that and 120 billion dollars in aid since February 2022 specifically, and a numbers difference of roughly 6:1 in Ukrainian troops favor, they still are suffering heavier losses in human and tech casualties. Moreover this is in spite of Russia being very careful to reduce civilian casualties on top of that.
>deranged to think Russia economy and military are gaining from thisExcept it isn't. The economy has been forced to use only local resources and local development, forcing them to be more self-sufficient in terms of production. The lack of an export economy is also making the domestic market more important, forcing them to expand and improve conditions, production and products for the home markets. On top of this the military is in an active conflict and so making large orders for modernizations of older tech, reactivation of mothballed tech, production of new tech and replacement of existing or lost tech. They also get to test out new weapons and gain experience and make counters to Western systems and tactics and capture them for study.
>military thinking is about hoping for the best and planning for the worstTrue, doesn't mean that 2024-2025 statement is at all a realistic consideration
>GDP Lurk Moar, GDP doesn't mean shit in reality.
>hundreds of thousands of people not being in the workforce You do realize Russia is a massive country that has over a hundred million people right? You don't think they don't have people to take up work positions left behind by people taken into service? This is laughable shit comparable to ant-labour-law Senators complaining about the same shit in America.
>their troops seem to be facing shell rationing and moral issues while there is a rivalry between the army and the pmc Stop looking at Western news sources, they can't tell a lie to save their ass. The Russians have been doing the exact opposite in terms of shelling, firing larger salvos than the Ukrainians. The fantasy of Russia lacking ARTILLERY and AMMUNITION is probably the most absurd thing I've heard in years, the country that has Soviet stockpiles and even after the USSR has stockpiled ammunition like Judgement Day is coming, is running out of shells? Give me a break. If anything it's a projection of Western stockpiles being low. Soldier morale is mostly pretty high, dozens of independent journalists and others do interviews on the frontlines and none are doubtful about their victory.
>a few thousands tanks and mbts LMAO no. Maybe a hundred or 2 but a couple thousand? Get the fuck out.
>a hundred aircraft Unless you're counting drones that's just no true, not to mention Ukraine has practically no air force or aerial capability, their drones are the only thing they have and even they aren't too effective, getting shot down almost immediately.
>flagshipAnd in the meantime the Ukrainian navy doesn't exist badum tsss
>the expense of being sanctioned sanctions don't mean shit and haven't for a long time
https://southfront.org/russias-economy-performed-much-better-than-the-west-expected-despite-sanctions/ https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/end-age-sanctions >their military being revealed as a potemkine forceLaughable nonsense of redditoid armchair analysts.
PS
Patriot missile systems are a long time to train, even longer considering the difference in tech in NATO and Soviet systems. They aren't going to be ready until 2024 at best
https://southfront.org/ukraine-wont-be-ready-for-patriot-missiles-until-2024-advisory-body-warns-u-s-congress-of-high-risks-from-deliveries/ Minsk agreement sham
Holland:
https://southfront.org/france-confirmes-peace-agreements-for-ukraine-are-lie/Merkel:
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202212/1281708.shtml Poroshenko:
https://www.rt.com/russia/557307-poroshenko-comments-minsk-agreement/ Civilian casualties during the conflict:
https://southfront.org/russia-conducts-operation-with-minimum-civilian-casualties-study-shows/ >>2642Ukraine had time to train but they didn't take the threat of war very seriously thus didn't prepare as they should have done. For example their NCO corps is basically non existent because of their inexperience and lack of training, they often do debates to take decisions on the tactical level, therefore their morale is high but the discipline is lacking.
If you think autarky is good for a capitalist country that can't build a lot of high end goods it needs on its own you do you, why not, could turn for the better in the future. Furthermore GDP actually means shit for capitalist countries, you're just coping about that by crying spook in this instance because you're infatuated with a particular capitalist country, and I'll bet you'll be jizzing in your pants when the capitalist countries you don't like announce a recession this year, which will tell us everything we need to know about how much of principled socialist you are.
You can diminish and deny the losses Russia incurred all you want, by saying Ukraine is in a worse position for example, but the point of this war, that I believed was even agreed upon by both Russia and US stans, is that it's a proxy conflict. The US didn't loose anything besides the weapons that were designed and built to take out Russian men and materiel. BTW my sources for the seemingly russian hardships in shell rationing are telegram channels of soldiers complaining, I'm not getting that from CNN.
I'm sure Cuba and Venezuela will be happy to know sanctions don't mean shit, you should go and tell them. Also I don't really care about how morally good russia is at avoiding killing people, even more so if it's an internet blog that wants me to "take the red pill" that's telling me that. Geopolitics are amoral, Russia is not "good", Russia is a country that wants to do things benefiting itself, Russia avoided hitting civilian centers in the beginning because they thought an easy victory was possible and wanted subsequently to diminish the amount of popular anger against their rule and profit from an intact economy. The moral sugarcoating like nazi killing or national liberation is like in any capitalist war mainly a propaganda narrative meant to garner support. I don't care about agreements and who was in the legally wrong or what ultimately caused the war, it's mostly irrelevant, you only need to know who claims what to more accurately understand and predict their behavior. This thread is about military analysis and the lessons of war, you should abandon idealist thinking.
>>2645>Ukraine had time to train but they didn't take the threat of war very seriously Cope excuse
>their morale is high their morale is rockbottom to the point that they execute suspected deserters on the frontlines.
> inexperience and lack of training No, they're just fucking incompetent.
>a capitalist country that can't build a lot of high end goods That's not Russia, you really have no comprehension of Russia's industrial might
>you're just coping about that by crying spook in this instance because you're infatuated with a particular capitalist countryNah, nice projection though idealist
>You can diminish and deny the losses Russia incurred Nothing to deny, pic rel
>tell us everything we need to know about how much of principled socialistNever claimed to be one, funny that, Mr.Ideologue.
>my sources for the seemingly russian hardships in shell rationing are telegram channels of soldiers complaining Ah yes, just like those videos of "DPR" troops making high-loss claims only to be revealed to be fakes agitating for pro-ukrainian talking points? Telegram isn't Russian-only, it's free to use and anyone can make a post.
>Cuba and Venezuela will be happy to know sanctions false equivalency. Cuba has a BLOCKADE and Venezuela is recovering. Cuba is not too bad off either.
>an internet blog that wants me to "take the red pill" Tell me more on how I know you can't read. You're just copy-pasting generic twitter responses and using ad hom deflection. You've not provided shit for an argument
>N-no not morality being important!Ok, keep polishing Keitel's knob some more.
>moral sugarcoating like nazi killing or national liberation *Laughs in actual socialist movements* you are the picture of armchair arrogance, bravo.
>Russia avoided hitting civilian centers in the beginning because they thought an easy victory was possibleYou prove again you read NONE of what you responded to and have no comprehension of military strategy and tactics. You're General McArthur levels of deranged.
>I don't care about agreements and who was in the legally wrong or what ultimately caused the war<The cause of military conflict is unimportant This is the most undialectical, ignorant nonsense I've seen so far. You try to gaslight me with gotcha's about "le capitalist cuntry support" being unprincipled, even though I haven't stated such anywhere, and then you go on to outright disregard the importance of dialectic analysis so you can pigeonhole your inanities as "truf". This is no different to the historical ignoramuses that claim the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was an alliance.
> This thread is about military analysis and the lessons of war, you should abandon idealist thinking. The sheer irony of this Pot-meet-Kettle statement is amazing, I refuse to believe any sane, educated adult is this ignorant an not just intentionally being obtuse.
>>2641>samefagschizo lmao
>LMAO, because >>2626 isn't a textwall? No, it's a paragraph friend. Meanwhile your replies are borderline unreadable bile not too dissimilar to the WV schizo that visits leftypol from time to time
I suppose I got my answer about what ziggaz think of recent events, this being denial and screeching, just like I 'member
>>2642>And in the meantime the Ukrainian navy doesn't exist badum tsssThe fact that they sunk Russia's flagship without a navy is even more embarrassing. I remember when that news came out, ziggaz were saying Ukraine is lying and it's just some random boat they sunk, which makes it even funnier
>>2648Can ziggaz understand that skepticism regarding Russia's war effort is not an endorsement of the other side lmfao. What makes you think you'll look any sillier than this dude
>>1832 6 months from now, or the dudes at the start saying this was gonna take a couple of weeks?
>deflection ad hom armchair ad hom undialectical idealist ad homThis post is literally half memespeak and buzzwords what the actual fuck man, not to mention a stunning lack of self awareness since your entire post is ad hominem-ing the other dude
>Nothing to denyDid picrel just not happen in your mind? Inb4 they didn't need those territories anyway and just fought for them for shits and giggles
<N-no not morality being important!>Ok, keep polishing Keitel's knob some more. I can't tell if you're unironically endorsing moralism here, but if you are, that is really fucking funny
To get back on track, and about the general issue of ammunition production that is experienced by both sides, here's an analysis of Russian journos on Russian ammo
https://nitter.kylrth.com/RALee85/status/1611034054899470336Bottom line is they need millions of rounds per year, but only produce a few hundred k, and they were somewhat late in ramping up production/refurbishment. There's the question of converting civilian industry, and the problem of some shells having defects.
>>2650 >Kyiv Independent??? No mention of that from me, moron.
>Muh Southfront <Oh no a site references a common online termin for independent truth in a intro line, the horror!not an argument
The liberal is you.
>>2651 This is idiotic; you can't go from "There's a 2.6 million ton stockpile of ammunition (caliber undefined)" and then switch to "production is 300 thousand rounds (caliber undefined)", that tells us NOTHING about the number of rounds in storage and the lack of a caliber makes it even more confusing. Even a single 125mm roundcan range from 4kg to 20kg alone; just going by 125mm an assuming heaviest ammunition that 2.6 million tons of stockpile is going to be 130000000 rounds - 130 MILLION. Various artillery calibers get used more or less than others. 125mm is probably the heaviest in use right now, the 152mm the heaviest after that. More recently the 240mm is gaining more usage in counter-battery mortar shelling.
More importantly Murakhovsky is not saying that Russia is lacking ammunition at the moment, but that if it can't raise production that is a possible future problem due to infrastructure being unprepared. He also states that this isn't critical and can be caught up.
>>2654Now don't be so selective in your reading!
I'm gonna spell it out for you: the russian soldiers and mercenaries complain about shell hunger, the problem is so prevalent russian milblogers and journos are now complaining about shell hunger: Russia has a shell problem.
They don't know if they can solve it fast enough, making workers manufacture them around the clock isn't enough, furthermore the 2022 vintage has defects. And some of those people are really dubious in the capabilities or even the will of the russian government to convert civilian industry and find engineers and specialists to make enough of what they need.
>bu-bu-but the 1xxmm and the billions of stocksSure go tell the russian artillery men, with their shortage of shells they'll probably take the time to listen to you.
>>2656 Yeah unlike you I can read it in Russian instead of half-ass translations.
> russian soldiers and mercenaries complain about shell hunger No, a sourceless telegram post claims that there is a lack of shells, and then other telegram posts parrot that posts' claim.
Everything else being claimed is also just more hearsay and BS speculation, not concrete fact.
>Muh 1xxmmNot an argument. The posts are fucking shite because they don't provide real information that can actually be compared. 2.6 million tons of shells is meaningless to compare to 300k shells produced, because you can't compare tonnage to number of shells. This is basic mathematics for fucks sake.
>tell the russian artillery men Don't have to, there's literally hundreds of interviews and combat footage that have Russian artillerymen fire constantly from morning til night and have the shell casing piles to prove it.
>>2657Ah yes, the posts are shit now they don't fit in your red pill. The point is that the trillions tons of shells they have are old and unusable as is, the need for their refurbishment necessitates work.
On an unrelated note what are your feelings if I tell you more than 20 millions soviet people died during WW2 and the Americans landed on the moon in 69?
>>2658 >the posts are shit now they don't fit in your red pill<now No they're shit because they're a terrible and poorly misinformative, using set of non-correlating information to push a false narrative. As an aside, your constant "muh reed pill" is literally the left figure of pic rel.
>point is that the trillions tons of shells they have are old and unusable as is No, you're just changing goal posts, first they are running out of shells, then its production is too low, now it's "lotsa shells are unusable", ignoring that roughly 3/4 of several hundred million rounds for artillery stockpile are in usable condition.
>the need for their refurbishment necessitates work The military ALWAYS has something needing refurbishment, that's been true of every gorran military ever since complex technological systems became a major part of warfare.
>what are your feelings if I tell you more than 20 millions soviet people died during WW2 Yeah I know that, and?
>Muh moon landing Looks fake as shit, don't care either way.
>>2661 >RIM-7 Sea sparrow missiles that can be fired from retrofitted BUKs As the HARM missile failure reveals, that means little. The conversion mounts aren't enough to interface completely different systems, if anything the effectiveness is going to be less than conventional BUK missiles
>AMX-10 RC light tanks artillery fodder, their speed isn't going to be any use in that terrain, especially in the current season and they're very vulnerable to most heavy systems, such as the 14.5 an 12.7mm machine guns and RPGs. The cannon is nice but too small a caliber to destroy a modern tank and is likely to get tagged by a BMP-2s 30mm canon, as it is to tag a BMP. Utterly defenseless against an attack chopper. Just like the Caesar and other French systems sent it's a nothingburger.
>BradleyLOL, LMAO even. The bradley is out of production and has no replacement in the US military. It's a fucking lemon and there's a couple posts on the board talking about it. 155mm shells are about the only real threat and even then, it's not a high enough amount to significantly change things.
>>2662 Aluminum isn't a factor in itself, the particular aluminum used on Bradley's has a tendency to light up under incendiary impact though.
>>2649>t's a paragraph <It's only a paragraph if I do it!Ok
>your replies are borderline unreadable bile Sure, ok
>denial and screeching Projection
>The fact that they sunk Russia's flagshipThey didn't and it's been disproven ITT.
>ziggaz were saying Ukraine is lying and it's just some random boat they sunk,Nope, noone said that, you're just making shit up.
>skepticism regarding Russia's war effort is not an endorsement of the other side Predictably the bothside-fag falls back on the "it's not an endorsement" platitude
>This post is literally half memespeak and buzzwords <misrepresent the post, then claim "muh memespeak" dialectics are not memespeak, neither is pointing out ad hominum, cretin.
>picrel You're shifting goalposts again for another "gotcha lol"
>M-morals are le bad Typical 'nu-age' leftism, utterly disregarding important grass-roots parts of leftist appeal and direction. Read Castro you utter ignoramus
>>2664>Nope, noone said that, you're just making shit up.I don't remember if they had cyclical threads back when it happened, but if they happened to be archived you're free to check for yourself what people were saying back when it happened lmao. I like that you ignored that post (yours?) from last year that aged like complete shit – much like every other zigga prediction. Getting news from ziggaz is as reliable as getting them from ukrop sources.
>bothside-fagWhat both sides? You treat politics no different than team sports
>dialectics are not memespeakYou spouting the latest buzzwords you learned in a youtube video is not dialectics, it's verbal garbage coming out of a retard
>shifting goalpostsWho? Where? What did I shift goalposts from?
Tell me honestly instead of avoiding the question, how did those territorial losses happen if Russia is on top? Is it all according to their keikaku?
>M-morals are le bad No, they just don't matter
>Typical 'nu-age' leftismMemespeak
>utterly disregarding important grass-roots parts of leftist appeal and directionNon-sequitur
>Read Castro you utter ignoramusNo thanks, my reading list is already filled by amoralists such as Marx and the Bolsheviks
>>2666 >Satan trips<n-no morality Marx wrote theory, he also made inaccurate statements.
>f they happened to be archived you're free to check for yourself what people were saying back when it happened Until Fall I posted in those threads. People said a lot, but not that.
>like that you ignored that post I like that you ignored that it isn't incorrect. Ukraine lacks any large army groups, they're forced to be small and mobile, because large units get trapped like Azov. The Ukrainians are constantly losing territory, the map you posted doesn't prove shit, Russia took Kherson, but not the majority of those Purple highlighted territories, and has consistently been pushing out Ukrainians. Any "regain" Ukraine made, gets pushed back again soon after.
>Getting news from ziggaz is as reliable as getting them from ukrop sources Spoken in true bad faith
>What both sides? You treat politics no different than team sportsFeigning ignorance to make a false claim, another fallacious argument
>You spouting the latest buzzwords<muh youtubeUnlike you I don't get my information from youtube vloggers, I actually read the theory. None of the things I said are buzzwords, nor are they "latest" considering leftypol refers to them constantly for years. You expose yourself as a n00b.
>it's verbal garbage coming out of a retard Stop looking in a mirror then
> instead of avoiding the questionYou are avoiding my point by making a false comparison, your 'question' is gaslight
>how did those territorial losses happen Already answered in several posts prior. You claim I argue like things are 2 sports teams, yet approach the concept of warfare exactly like that, proving your projection.
>they don't matter>"A chekist can only be a man with a cold head, a hot heart and clean hands. Anyone who becomes cruel and whose heart remains insensitive to prisoners must leave here. Here, as in no other place, you need to be kind and noble." - Iron Felix >January 19, 1945 Stalin signs a general directive which forbids harsh treatment of enemy population by the army. It was duplicated by commanders of multiple fronts, for example, commander of the 2nd Belarussian Front Rokossovsky issued an order to execute all looters and rapists on sight. >https://espressostalinist.com/2013/08/11/v-i-lenin-on-communist-morality/ >"What has fascist Germany gained and what has she lost by treacherously tearing up the pact and attacking the USSR? She has gained a certain advantageous position for her troops for a short period, but she has lost politically by exposing herself in the eyes of the entire world as a blood-thirsty aggressor. There can be no doubt that this short-lived military gain for Germany is only an episode, while the tremendous political gain of the USSR is a serious lasting factor that is bound to form the basis for development of decisive military successes of the Red Army in the war with fascist Germany." - Stalin, speech of 1941 to the people of the USSR https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/stalin-speaks-to-the-people-of-the-soviet-union-on-german-invasion-july-1941I can go on and on about the importance of ethics and morality for leftism and war. Point is your attitude is exactly the kind of sociopathic ideology that every real communist revolutionary has rejected. Morality =/= liberal pacifism or handwringing. So kindly, get therapy you psycho.
>MemespeakNot an argument
>such as Marx and the Bolsheviks I guarantee that you read The Communist Manifesto and excerpts of shit that fits your amoral idealism
>>2667>BUKs have been very useful for air defrnse They aren't, MANPADS have been the most effective (not very much at that) but have little impact against high-flying jets. Not to mention the utter failure against Russian drone striking.
>Ukraine is not running out of ammo for themAn SAM is not like a machine-gun, the type of rocket matters. Ukraine's systems are old models that had been obsolete by 1995. Not to mention large amounts of their stockpile had been taken out by cruise missile strikes.
>they could get effectively get up to 5 patriots 1) The Pentagon itself states that 2024 is the soonest the systems are going to be ready
2) The Patriot missile system is garbage
https://archive.is/zjL9K https://archive.vn/KdUNc https://archive.is/Nze9e >S-300 Old models that, like the Buk Russia is extremely familiar with and has the countermeasures for.
>Russia can't produce that much missiles Says who? Some BS blogposts and sourceless news articles?
>I'm dubious in their capability to sustain their strategic bombing campaign <Russia, a country famous for insanely large stockpiles and that has been ramping up production since the Syrian war is going to run out of bombs This is too funny
>you have a cope for each item <C-copeCry more.
>Muh T-72 carousel memeAnd the 4ch/k/ ignoramus reveals themselves
Out of all the items your pic lists, the m113 is the best one, and the narrow tracks have trouble in mud, Ukrainian videos of that already exist. Several already delivered M113s have already been captured or destroyed.
>The Bradley Literally cannot be replaced in the US military and like any other vehicle on the list, is an easy airstrike target
>Muh artillery The Panzer 2000 has already proven to be no better than any existing Soviet systems in Ukrainian service + the shit barrel life makes it no use in long term. The M777s have been taken out consistently and are outranged by their contemporary Soviet equivalents. Polish Krab mobile artillery has been taken out one after the other. M109s are going to change nothing. A single Ukrainian artillery gun unit goes through roughly 100s of rounds per day. Multiply that across all artillery and that 70,000 is going to get used up in a week and that's ignoring shell stockpiles needing to being delivered to the front, the fact that Russia has consistently targeted these stockpiles, and the effective counter-battery fire Russia has. This is only for 155mm. 105mm is a joke, the range is pathetic, penetration ineffective against any current Russian tanks. Even the T-62M requires more advanced rounds to be penetrated at range like the M111.
>HIMARS HIMARS has a small salvo, it's range is comparable to the Uragan, but the throw weight is less than half. A single missile has a small explosive yield, and as a famous Ukrainian bridge proves, the impacts get repaired literally hours later.
>MRAPs / HumveesUkrainian posts demonstrate them getting stuck in the mud. Several got destroyed already. Humvees are also fodder
>Ammo Russia has hit stockpile locations repeatedly and cut off supply lines. TOW missiles are no better than anything else - Javelin's are better and still aren't as effective as memed, Konkurs and other ATGMs have equivalent performance. Not to mention TOW relay lines are a major problem in wooded areas.
>>2669>Marx wrote theory, he also made inaccurate statements. What a meaningless statement lmao
>Unlike you I don't get my information from youtube vloggers, I actually read the theoryYou absolutely do not, unless you consider moving your eyes across a page to be reading
>None of the things I said are buzzwordsThey are when you use them as such, but I agree there's always been retards saying undialectical idealist material conditions without understanding what any of it means
>Already answered in several posts prior.Where?
>I guarantee that you read The Communist Manifesto and excerpts of shit that fits your amoral idealismI guarantee you have not read even that
>>amoral idealismyou are beyond fucking retarded holy shit
>I can go on and on about the importance of ethics and morality for leftism and war.Thank you for not doing that
>Point is your attitude is exactly the kind of sociopathic ideology that every real communist revolutionary has rejectedYou are either retarded or speaking out of your ass, or both. Marx deliberately made an amoral analysis of capitalism and avoided morality altogether, the Bolsheviks were hardcore amoralists, understaning that morals were nothing but a reflection of the dominant class beliefs. You cannot make revolution by appealing to morality.
<picrelLiterally arguing against moralism
>>2669>>2671 (me)
(cont.)
I find it interesting that you quoted Dzerzhinsky of all people, who was not the stupid moralist you make him out to be:
>"We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Soviet Government and of the new order of life. We judge quickly. In most cases only a day passes between the apprehension of the criminal and his sentence. When confronted with evidence criminals in almost every case confess; and what argument can have greater weight than a criminal's own confession?"Frankly, despite the man's kind demeanor, the man has said things that you would have called psychopathic:
>"We will turn our hearts into steel, which we will temper in the fire of suffering and the blood of fighters for freedom. We will make our hearts cruel, hard, and immovable, so that no mercy will enter them, and so that they will not quiver at the sight of a sea of enemy blood. We will let loose the floodgates of that sea. Without mercy, without sparing, we will kill our enemies in scores of hundreds. Let them be thousands; let them drown themselves in their own blood. For the blood of Lenin and Uritsky, Zinovief and Volodarski, let there be floods of the blood of the bourgeois - more blood, as much as possible."In the first quote, incidentelly, he happens to mirror none other than Marx himself, who, based on the example of the French Revolution, stated:
>"There is only one means to shorten, simplify and concentrate the murderous death throes of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new, only one means—revolutionary terror."If you recoiled in shock at these statements or think they are way too much, you are a liberal moralist. Incidentally, Lenin explains morality way better than I could have in the link you yourself provided:
>In what sense do we reject ethics, reject morality?>In the sense given to it by the bourgeoisie, who based ethics on God’s commandments. On this point we, of course, say that we do not believe in God, and that we know perfectly well that the clergy, the landowners and the bourgeoisie invoked the name of God so as to further their own interests as exploiters. Or, instead of basing ethics on the commandments of morality, on the commandments of God, they based it on idealist or semi-idealist phrases, which always amounted to something very similar to God’s commandments.>We reject any morality based on extra-human and extra-class concepts. We say that this is deception, dupery, stultification of the workers and peasants in the interests of the landowners and capitalists.>We say that our morality is entirely subordinated to the interests of the proletariat’s class struggle. Our morality stems from the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat.I.e. what is good or bad depends on whether they advance proletarian interests, morals are entirely subjective and arise out of necessity – not the other way around.
The rest of what you linked are just thinks that you think were morally good, I presume, which… good for you? But I once again question your capability to read if you managed to post things that go against your own point. I wanted to call you a certain word but I think you get the point already.
You might think this is a strange thing to insist on in the Ukraine thread, but if you have built your understanding of Marxism on such shaky moralist foundations then it really is no wonder you would fall into a manichean worldview.
As for the war, thank you for answering my questions. I now can fully understand the conflict: the Moskva did not sink (???), or it sank on its own (even more embarrassing), Ukraine's army is decimated and cannot take any territory, but also they took Kherson, but it's okay because Russia will just take it back (don't question how they lost it in the first place!), as they are simply mopping up 1 year later after they destroyed Ukraine's armored forces. I'm starting to think I made the right choice in joining my peers in not giving a single fuck about the war the moment Azovstal finally fell if these are the kind of schizos I would have to discuss the conflict with lmao.
>>2671 >meaningless statement lmaoIt isn't and the reason is self-obvious
>You absolutely do notYes, I do, stop projecting your illiteracy unto me.
>Where? Scroll up, I'm not spoonfeeding you things ITT
>I guarantee you have not read even that I've read all of that and more.
>you are beyond fucking retarded No, I'm not. Your statement about moral high-ground is ignorant and speaks of an utter disconnect from actual blue collar workers.
>Marx deliberately made an amoral analysis of capitalism because he was making an objective, socio-economic analysis. Ethical analysis is a separate matter entirely.
>he Bolsheviks were hardcore amoralistsNo, they rejected tsarist traditionalism/reactionary rhetoric, but among their most important rallying points is their rejection of the AMORAL, INHUMANE behavior of the White Guard and corruption of the Church. Lenin literally came in on Land. Peace. Bread. Material benefits alone are not going to appeal to people but neither are ideological platitudes.
>You cannot make revolution by appealing to morality. LMAO some of the biggest revolts to happen are caused by outrage over a regime pushing their inhumane an immoral treatment too far. Literally this is the reason the Russian Revolution began, after the Czar's troops massacred a peaceful protest and the same can be said for the Decembrist revolt, begun out of the immoral and oppressive abuse of soldiers in Imperial Russia. Moreover moral high ground is important for morale in troops, it is important to a population in war. That's the reason Vietnam is such a big deal in the USA, the troops had no moral high-ground and were condemned for it, rightly so, including/especially by communists. But apparently morality is unimportant because "psychological and social influence is for squares bruh"
Just an FYI - the entire concept of human rights is based n ethics and morality, and human rights are an inherent part of real leftist movements, not the theoretical analyses in someone's head or literature.
>Literally arguing against moralism No it argue's against ideological idealism in regards to ordinary people that have their own aims and concerns ethical or material that may not follow some leftist purism.
>>2673>Dzerzhinsky of all people, who was not the stupid moralist you make him out to be <stupid moralistProjection and being obtuse is not an argument
>Terror against the upper class is the same as immorality It is not immoral to strike fear into an enemy, it is immoral to be inhumane if you are doing so.
>despite the man's kind demeanor, the man has said things that you would have called psychopathic No I wouldn't because I literally grew up on this blood and steel literature, in the original language no less. No mercy to an enemy is not the same as being immoral or casting it aside thoughtlessly. You fundamentally have no comprehension of this topic and your "highlights" only 'highlight' this lacking and frankly /pol/-tier view of leftism.
>French RevolutionAnd if you recall the French Terror resulted in a revolt because they stopped having regard and empathy for their fellow people, leading to the eventual rise of Napoleon THE EMPEROR whose empathy to his troops is among the reasons for their loyalty.
>If you recoiled in shock at these statements or think they are way too much, you are a liberal moralistIf you think any of these things is even remotely new to me, then you're a cherrypicking moron
>I.e. what is good or bad depends on whether they advance proletarian interests Yeah, nice goalpost shift faggot. Now instead of "morals don't matter" it's "Only proletarian morals don't matter" something that has no relevance to the argument at hand. Textwalling your longwinded attempt to dismiss and belittle me is not an argument and is just derailing and deflection.
>if you have built your understanding of Marxism on such shaky moralist foundationsI have not, you are projecting such because of your utterly self-limited understanding of me, this conflict and the issues of leftist theory and practical application/appeal to the proletariat. I live in reality - the people are not motivated by "Grug sez morality no matter" that you are saying. People in the Donbass don't CARE about Putin's Russia being "le porky" because it's not about Putin's government, it's about Russia as a people, and as soldiers helping them against an enemy that has dehumanized and brutally murdered them. The Nazi regime wasn't hated for being economically inefficient, they're hated for being immoral pieces of shit, and they recognized this subconsciously, and so used every excuse in the book to justify their immorality, thus Goebbels' propaganda having a ministry.
>the Moskva did not sink (???), or it sank on its ownIt suffered a fire that caused an explosion. The damage made it vulnerable to a heavy squall that sank it after the crew was evacuated. This is only "important" because it happened during the conflict. military accidents are common. The USA has had just as many as Russia, shit happens in a military numbering millions of people.
>they took Kherson They didn't, they had forces enter briefly for some PR photos, but they aren't staying there, primarily because the moment they tried Russian aviation took out a massive number of them in a single strike. Russia has already taken city after city and has done so every day.
>don't question how they lost it in the first placeTactical withdrawal. Again already discussed ITT or links ITT thread.
>they are simply mopping up 1 year later after they destroyed Ukraine's armored forcesYes. The USSR spent more than that mopping up Nazi and other terrorist forces and this is after the complete defeat of the Nazis.
>made the right choice in joining my peers in not giving a single fuck about the war <S-schizo! Your understanding of war being poor doesn't make people schizo. Similarly if you enter a Calculus discussion but have no comprehension of theoretical velocities at an exact time, you're going to think the mathematical calculations used are all made up technobabble. As for not caring, I only started to post ITT again after someone (probably you) made a retarded reee-post. I haven't been in the Ukraine General since September and don't care to start again.
>>2674>It isn't and the reason is self-obvious Lmao
>im not you are no u no u projection no u no uok bro, sure
>No, I'm not. Your statement about moral high-ground is ignorant and speaks of an utter disconnect from actual blue collar workers. What are you actually saying here, that blue collar workers
are motivated by morality, and not by… y'know, putting bread on the table? I'll get back to this
>because he was making an objective, socio-economic analysis. Ethical analysis is a separate matter entirely. Agreed. Fortunately, nobody is doing an ethical analysis because it is completely and utterly worthless, that is, except for the liberals who think ethics is what shapes society. Hey, at least you admit morality and ethics are out of the realm of objectivity.
>scroll upI even CTRL+F'd, I'll just assume you're talking out of your ass
>No, they rejected tsarist traditionalism/reactionary rhetoric, but among their most important rallying points is their rejection of the AMORAL, INHUMANE behavior of the White Guard and corruption of the Church.Are you confusing immoral with amoral? Is this the problem here? Also, no, the Bolsheviks rejected bourgeois morality altogether, as the link you provided states, in favor of proletarian morality based on proletarian interests. Not only that, but
in the interests of the world proletariat as a whole, not a particular proletariat'. German socdems made the argument that waging the war
was in German proles interests, like a certain renegade, and similar justification came from other "Marxists" of the time.
The Whites being complete pieces of shit sure helped to drive the point home, though.
>Lenin literally came in on Land. Peace. Bread. Yes. He appealed to
the actual material interests of Russian proles and peasants you complete and utter retard. He never went "um, guys, war is le bad???? and immoral and shit", him and the Bolsheviks as well as every other actual revolutionary communist at the time merely pointed out to the proles that said war was fought at their expense for the interest of a small minority, or even for no actual purpose at all.
>LMAO some of the biggest revolts to happen are caused by outrage over a regime pushing their inhumane an immoral treatment too far. As in, it is in the people's interest to do away with a regime doing them harm. What a concept
>Just an FYI - the entire concept of human rights is based n ethics and morality, and human rights are an inherent part of real leftist movementsL M F A O no shit that human rights, a bourgeois concept, are based in le ethics an morality, and the reason every bourgeois filth ever hides behind "human rights" every single time. Don't the bourgeoisie have human rights? Fuck bro guess I can't be a gommie
>No it argue's against ideological idealism in regards to ordinary people that have their own aims and concerns ethical or material that may not follow some leftist purism.Word gore. I legitimately cannot understand what you are saying here
>>2675>It is not immoral to strike fear into an enemy, it is immoral to be inhumane if you are doing so. Says who, you? Or this objective Morality™ in your head?
How can you even type this and not realize that what is "moral" depends on person to person, and is largely, or even solely, influenced by their class interest? Moreover, you saying this goes completely against those "optics" things you've quoted a post prior
>And if you recall the French Terror resulted in a revolt because they stopped having regard and empathy for their fellow people, leading to the eventual rise of Napoleon THE EMPEROR whose empathy to his troops is among the reasons for their loyalty. Thermidorean propaganda? In MY leftypol?
They didn't "stop having regard and empathy for their fellow people", they were carrying out the simple, revolutionary task of ruthlessly putting down the counter-revolution. Moreover, the excesses of the Terror happened while Robespierre was away, done by people who were actively trying to frame them on him – less a revolt, more of a deliberate sabotage.
In addition, you'd recall that the Thermidorean reaction that put down the "dictator" Robespierre resulted in its own revolt on 1 Prairie III, by the sans-culottes, the heart and soul of the revolution. There was no "people" that all acted in unison, there are only different classes with separate interests– ones that wanted Robespierre dead, and ones that wanted the Revolution carried out to the end.
Anyway, I'm gonna stop here otherwise this'll evolve into another 100 posts where I fuckin beat the shit out of you and put your head on a pike for spreading this ahistorical filth out here
>Yeah, nice goalpost shift faggot. Now instead of "morals don't matter" it's "Only proletarian morals don't matter" something that has no relevance to the argument at hand.I felt the need to single this out from the rest of the post, because I think it's important. Answer me honestly, and I ask this without any kind of malice or bad faith at all: are you legitimately diagnosed with some sort of mental disability, or are you actually trolling me?
Nobody said "proletarian morals don't matter" and I am actually at a loss for words how this is what you got out of the post.
Morals,
in general, don't matter, because they are simply secondary to class interests, the real driving force of society. The former are a pale reflection out of the latter. Proles don't revolt against capitalism because it's morally good, but because it is in their interest to do so. Likewise, bourgeoisie don't exploit proles because they're LE BAD, but because they are acting in rational self-interest. Of course, to a prole, organizing a strike seems good and workers rights seem like a moral imperative, but to a porky it seems like a moral atrocity that infringes on their sacred property rights. The influence morals have on society is simply in playing second fiddle to basic. material. interests.
>I live in reality - the people are not motivated by "Grug sez morality no matter"No fucking shit. People are not influenced by "GUYZZZ morality is super important, it would be super duper moral if we did this!" either. Nor are they influenced by people telling them anything, they are motivated by self interest you actual invertebrate.
Some people may be swayed by moral arguments to action, an infintismally small amount, and yet no event in history has been caused by moral indignation.
>People in the Donbass don't CARE about Putin's Russia being "le porky" because it's not about Putin's government, it's about Russia as a people, andAnd the crown jewel you thought to finish this with is to spout nationalistic bile, wonderful.
Please, if you are Russian, don't do any of that "revolutionary defeatism" ultra bullshit; do the moral, virtuous thing to do by fulfilling your duty to your nation and enlist.
>The Nazi regime wasn't hated for being economically inefficient, they're hated for being immoral pieces of shit, and they recognized this subconsciously, and so used every excuse in the book to justify their immorality, thus Goebbels' propaganda having a ministry. Immoral according to who, again? The Nazis considered what they were doing to be entirely moral, moreover, a moral imperative, for the biological survival of their race.
Once again, what's moral and what's not is a second-hand justification for pre-existing interests.Moreover, Slavs, Jews, Roma, communists etc. didn't oppose Nazis because they were immoral, they fought them because it was a matter of life or fucking death lmao. People
>They didn't take KhersonSure buddy
>Tactical withdrawalYup, I believe you. You've gone and convinced me. Guess we can end this here now.
>>2679 >all this shit <No actual point, because the goalposts have reached orbit and its just repeating basic facts an twisting them to fit your inane narrative to veil your ignorance of the real world>blue collar workers are motivated by morality, and not by… y'know, putting bread on the table<You can't have both! If you aren't aware the majority of people that care for morality/ethics tend to be proletarian, the rich are psychopathic or sociopathic exploiters by the nature of their class, that's the reason welfare capitalism and idpol movements exist, to appeal to moral/ethical principles and stave off revolution. This is a direct response to socialism appealing to proletarians through material and moral reasoning and prompting anti-capitalist movements post-1917. Or is the CIA sabotaging socialist movements for giggles?
I am a blue-collar worker, at an 8-6 job doing heavy labour and under the poverty line. I read and educate myself, and analyze everything, because I live in reality, not eternally behind a computer. Purely material motivation has never been successful in the long-run and is especially ignorant in regards to geopolitical real politik that should be the concern of any leftist and especially in regards to a situation like the current Ukraine conflict.
Moreover I guarantee that if Russia had not been trying to maintain a moral high-ground, you ideologues would bitch about that too, you already fell for literal fakes and false-flags before.
>Fortunately, nobody is doing an ethical analysis because it is completely and utterly worthlessAnd with that you've proven that you have nothing productive to contribute. Morality on its own is not the point, but to dismiss it entirely is ignorant and arrogant, because morality in itself arises from historical and material dialectics and influences them.
>Bolsheviks rejected bourgeois morality altogether You say that as if there aren't morals that are in essence universal for both. The bourgeois are not aliens or inhuman beings, they are people that have rational self-interests.
>German socdems made the argument that waging the war was in German proles interestsSo? Russia has literally been avoiding a war for 8 years. Your thinly-veiled false equivalence fails.
>CTRL+F No fag, you just can't read. You can lead a horse to water…
>at least you admit morality and ethics are out of the realm of objectivity.No they are not, they are outside the realm of pure logic at times but not rationality. Tossing this aside, is discarding a trait that fundamentally makes humanity people and the traits that let societies and social groups form in early humans to begin with - the ability to cooperate and empathize. There is a reason that evil is often stated to be rooted in a lack of empathy to ones fellow.
>He appealed to the actual material interests And yet again you demonstrate a complete lack of comprehension. Land Peace and Bread are not just MATERIAL, they are in rational self-interest. This alone is not a motivating factor for a revolution or a long-term unified people, if anything it leads to interconflict of interests. The other side of it is simple - People sided with Lenin because he was good to them, and in layman's terms morally better than any other group that may have promised similar bait or only platitudes, such as the Right SRs or the White Guard. The USSR fundamentally rejected purely materialistic motivation because that is literally the root leading to exploitation and hierarchies. Propaganda is the most effective method of carrying across a widespread message and its purpose is to appeal emotionally, because emotions are a key part of humanity. They are meant to rally people to a just and good cause, and it must have truth to it to resonate. Look at any Cuban, Soviet, Vietnamese or Chinese poster meant to motivate people, not a single one is using purely economic motive, because that kind of cold utilitarian logic comes off as reprehensible.
>He never went "um, guys, war is le bad???? and immoral and shit"Not the point, nor relevant
>him and the Bolsheviks as well as every other actual revolutionary communist at the time merely pointed out to the proles that said war was fought at their expense for the interest of a small minority, or even for no actual purpose at all Yes, AND this appealed to people because they FELT WRONGED for it. If you're going to go purely by absolute material logic then there is absolutely nothing wrong with capitalism because 'unfairness' is irrelevant. That's the reason Marx's analysis is SOCIO-ECONOMIC, because society and its behavior is important, and morality, no matter how Marx brushes over it (among many other things) is a major part of society and humanity until the point that we become soul-less automatons.
>it is in the people's interest to do away with a regime doing them harm No shit Sherlock, you figure that out finally?
>human rights <a bourgeois concept Lenin, Mao, Castro, Che, Allende, Stalin and every communist revolutionary to live, spit in your face. The concept of human rights is not bourg and your claim as such is ignorant and inhuman
>Fuck bro guess I can't be a gommieNo /pol/, you cannot be one.
>Muh human rights is this strawman about le bougs so it makes it not reel!Human rights are the reason you can post on this site and not languish in a jail for treason. Human rights are the reason society actually has organization and ancapistan is an unfeasible fantasy.
>every bourgeois filth ever hides behind "human rights" Except that's fallacious, consequences for actions are not defended by human rights.
>Word gore <I legitimately cannot understand Because you are a literal cretin that can't read, or rather is being cognitively dissonant, because your psychopathic mentality can only be justified by trying to demean metaphysical concepts inherent to societies and hide behind cherry-picked excerpts from influential people of the ideology you're bandwagoning on.
>Says who, you Says every communist regime and their leaders - Stalin, Felix, Mao, Castro etc. All of whom presided over periods of purges and anti-capitalist internal action such as terror. There is a reason Yezhov and Yagoda were punished.
>what is "moral" depends on person to person No you absolute moron. An entire facet of communist appeal is that it is meant to unite the people on the grounds that there are many central parts of humanity that are universal and so almost everyone has something in common. An individual having beliefs that are not the same as another's is not dichotomous, it is literally a duality of society.
>Thermidorean Those that ignore history reap the consequences
>they were carrying out the simple, revolutionary task of ruthlessly putting down the counter-revolution Yes and then completely lost sight of that and began to persecute people in a manner no better than the Royalists that had come before. They became just as bad as the "no-good monarchy" they got rid of, prompting the people, not the monarchists, to overthrow them, and support the rising Napoleon.
>the excesses of the Terror happened while Robespierre was away, done by people who were actively trying to frame them on him – less a revolt, more of a deliberate sabotage. Robespierre was dead because he was executed for his heavy-handed approach within the convention, sparking a reaction to get rid of him, spiraling into MORE terror as wrongthink got punished harder still. This is barely different to the liberals of the Kerensky regime infighting and reneging on their promise to fix the wrongs of Nicholas II and his regime, and then cracking down on dissent in the face of that.
>There was no "people" that all acted in unison, there are only different classes with separate interests– ones that wanted Robespierre dead, and ones that wanted the Revolution carried out to the end. Yeah, neither are The People, and so The People stopped supporting these groups, that's my fucking point.
>where I fuckin beat the shit out of you and put your head on a pike Sure, internet tough-guy. The only ahistorical tripe here is yours.
>I'm gonna stop here Sure…
>>2679Holy text wall batman
>Nobody said "proletarian morals don't matter" <earlier in the thread: "(morals) don't matter" - Post No 2666 Prior to this a post dismissed the need to fight nazis and the obligation of people to liberate people from them as moral sugarcoating.
>Morals, in general, don't matter Yes they do, as I explained above. Morals of the proletariat are PART OF CLASS INTERESTS FFS
Everything else you're saying is just backtracking and attempting to obfuscate this.
>Proles don't revolt against capitalism because it's morally good, but because it is in their interest to do so I already addressed this. Proles don't JUST revolt against it for moral reasons, but moral reasons are part of the motivation to act on their interests. Morals and morale are heavily linked, thus strikebreakers are often supported by propaganda attempting to attack the morality of the strike as well in the public image. Technically white proles get nothing from supporting the rights of black proles, but it is morally right to support our proletarian bretheren, that is class unity and heavily relies on the moral concept of it being wrong to be prejudicially discriminatory. Almost no average joe knows or frankly cares about the economic details
of, say, immigrant labour (extensive debunk on /pol/s attitude to this and higher minimum wage at
>>>/edu/4466 by yours truly). But morally appealing to them that these are just people desperate to make ends meet (just like them) is a moral/ethical position that appeals an unites them. This is an important social mechanic that drives the success or failure of a movement to gain popular support. That's the reason liberal idpol has little support among most proletarians (especially outside America0, they can't relate to middle-class entitled liberals complaining about inane first-world complaints - their bitching and moaning relies on false moralizing, no different to the cretins in /pol/.
>to a porky it seems like a moral atrocity that infringes on their sacred property rights. Hence the rejection of bourg morals. Then tell me, how is nazi killing and LIBERATION of PEOPLE bourg morals? If Russia had been saying this but clearly not attempting to save any infrastructure but industrial (like the US Army in Iraq did), then yeah, there's something fishy, but they're clearly not, as the heavy hitting of Azovstal and Ukrainian non-civilian infrastructure proves.
>People are not influenced by "GUYZZZ morality is super important, it would be super duper moral if we did this!" either. Nice false equivalency. People appeal to morality constantly in their arguments, its inherent. If you make it devoid of that you remove 90% of motivational appeal. This is seen in the US military, recruitment has plummeted because, in spite of all the benefits, the moral appeal is nigh nonexistent, nobody wants to fight imperialist conflicts, even though they'd gain all sorts of stuff that theoretically should make it a good idea in their rational self-interest.
> no event in history has been caused by moral indignation I gave examples of the opposite and more exist. Hell, even in recent time, as (despite my disagreement with them) the riots and protests as a result of police killings began from moral indignation over brutal murder.
>spout nationalistic bile No, you absolute moron, the mere fact that you see this as nationalism, proves that you have NO comprehension about real people's interests. The proletariat of the LDPR don't give a FLYING FUCK about your idealist nonsense, they have a history, a culture and relationship with Russia, a multi-ethnic country that has been permanently changed by the USSR's influence. Literally listen to ANY speech about Russia and the War given by Stalin, is he a nationalist? Is Lenin?
>Revolutionary defeatismYet another fallacious nonargument that flies in the face of reality.
>Immoral according to who To any decent human being that has a sense of empathy, you literal autist.
>he Nazis considered what they were doing to be entirely moral No, they used made up justifications and used ideological and material reasons to justify themselves to the people and heavily utilized indoctrinative propaganda. The concept of "Evil is the lack of empathy" came from the Nuremburg trials, a trial in part held by the COMMUNIST USSR. Yet the USSR unlike anyone else, only sought to punish the leadership and immediately culpable, not the ordinary people of Germany, explicitly punishing the violation of this and cementing themselves as the morally good side. If that hadn't been important, then the West wouldn't have spent decades falsifying/revising history to portray the USSR in as morally evil by common standards of decency. The "muh propery" meme is a side note in all the slander about mass killing, fixed trials and horrible living conditions.
>Slavs, Jews, Roma, communists etc. didn't oppose Nazis because they were immoral, they fought them because it was a matter of life or fucking death If you are retarded just say so. The Nazis visited upon the 'untermensch' things that are morally reprehensible, but are completely practical and in the self-interest of THEIR people to do so - to terrorize and eliminate an enemy, something that on its own, without morals could be considered little different from revolutionary terror, that's where morality comes into play. Revolutionary terror isn't just targeting enemies as a people, but as a class. More importantly its methods are not supposed to be brutalizing. The Guillotine is specifically meant to be a humane method, as ironic as that seems today, yet the Nazis did things that at times were so inefficient or unnecessary that it damaged their self-interests to the point of making them lose the war faster.
>KhersonKherson is both a region and a city. The N-W region is under Ukrainian jurisdiction, but they have no control of the actual governing area and basically no military presence in the city because every time they try the Russian military airstriked them out. Russia tactically backed out because, as several posts talk about, it became a front overhang that put Russian military forces under 3-sides of fire for no tactical or strategic advantage. Territory control in combat, especially today isn't about clinging to every inch you gain, because that's just going to cause increased losses for no real military result. There's no point.
Examples for proofs:
<The Russian army destroyed the command posts of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in Kherson and KupyanskDecember 29, 2022
<Russian troops completely control the island of Bolshoy Potemkin near KhersonJanuary 5, 2023
<Ukrainian media reported on explosions in KhersonJanuary 6, 2023
https://ria.ru/location_Kherson/>Guess we can end this here now Yep
>>2676>yet Russia can't seem to be capable of taking a small town like Bakhmut <Lets ignore Russia taking it, evacuating the people and then leaving a strategically and tactically insignificant position and portray it like HOI4! https://archive.ph/VXLrKAlso
- NYT - Artillery Is Breaking in Ukraine. It’s Becoming a Problem for the Pentagon. Ukrainian soldiers are firing thousands of shells daily, forcing the U.S. to replace gun barrels across the border in Poland:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/25/us/ukraine-artillery-breakdown.html Earlier: Panzerhaubitze 2000 wearing out barrels from sustained fire.
Sea-Sparrow; besides the problem of mounting a foreign system to a completely different one, the Sea Sparrow is from the 1960s and only one county operates a ground-base variant. It's a short-range AAM inferior in range and seeker compared to Buks, a system that came into service roughly 2 decades AFTER the S.Sparrow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVbbLt0iViU >>2681>If you aren't aware the majority of people that care for morality/ethics tend to be proletarian, the rich are psychopathic or sociopathic exploiters by the nature of their classWe are reaching levels of ideology not thought possible. I am actually amazed, you are not capable of comprehending the world outside moral categories.
>The concept of human rights is not bourg and your claim as such is ignorant and inhuman I guess if you are incapable of going beyond bourgeois morality, I shouldn't be surprised that you would also defend bourgeois right to the death. Avoid reading
On the Jewish Question or later Marxist criticism of rights or they might blow your mind
I like that your immediate response when disagreed with, multiple times in this thread, is to hide behind the idols of Great Men, even ones who have little to nothing in common with eachother or any relevance. Lenin next to Allende, lmao?
<what is "moral" depends on person to person >No you absolute moron.Wew lad. If you believe in moral universalism guess I can't stop you, best of luck during Bible study.
>An entire facet of communist appeal is that it is meant to unite the people on the grounds that there are many central parts of humanity that are universal and so almost everyone has something in common.What in the god damn fuck are you even talking about lmao
Communism is not a vague universalism, communism is the self-liberation and self-abolition of the proletariat, it is exclusive by its very own nature. There's no vague ""the people"" involved, unless you subscribe to the pre-Marxian notions of communism of course, in which case fucking lmao
>blah blah blah proles care about nationalismNo shit. They care about religion, too. Are you religious?
The role of a Marxist is not just to appeal to whatever proles find important, but specifically to peel back the layers of illusions that obscure reality as it really is, whether it's nationalism, God, etc.
I don't even think picking apart the rest of the post(s) is even worth it, the fact is you are so entrenched in your moralistic worldview that you vehemently believe it is the correct and
only way to view the world, no amount of reasoning could de-indoctrinate you from liberalism. The fact that you defend idealism while calling me an idealist is really fucking funny. Remember me 5 years from now when you start going on about 200 morbillion deaths, I see you've already taken the first step by disregarding Marx entirely.
>>2680Also, vive Robespierre you Thermidorean bitch, considered "Bolshevik
avant la lettre" by Lenin. No wonder liberals after the fact, from Carlyle to yourself would dogpile on him and recoil in shock at the Terror, they are too spineless and weak-willed to even imagine carrying through a revolution from start to finish. The guy was the definition of a liberal pacifist who would cry from the death of a pigeon, and yet he was among the only ones who realized that in a revolution they are tasks that
must be carried out and leaving a revolution half-done is a death sentence.
>>3196So first there always were revisionists in the communist movement, and on the other hand there was a lot of falsifying in the soviet union. Turns out when materialism is your only authorized school of thought you end up with an academic world far from being materialist because opinions/facts that diverge from assumed axioms and dogmas or are embarrassing for the ruling clique are put under the carpet while on the contrary false theories that go with the interests of the power are put forward. Hard to study and report on the diversity of religious and social practices of the rural world in Belgorod during the 17th century if the official party line is that they were oppressed backward people that were saved from ignorance suffering by the revolution.
Paradoxically - but likely for practical reasons - military science didn't suffer as much as, say, genetics, and the soviets were quite good at analyzing the weaknesses and strengths of their enemies during the cold war, even though their works were always traversed by the official Marxist Leninist precepts and party line of the moment. They knew that the United States was an industrial monster because they knew the specs and general numbers of each weapons they produced, they knew the Viet Minh didn't beat the French with "nothing but a rifle", they knew the Viet Cong failed their Tet offensive and generally lost against the US but won a battle of will, they knew how themselves lost tens of millions of people during WW2, and how much a conflict against western Europe would cost.
In short the limits self imposed by the USSR's ideology were trumped by pragmatism in key crucial areas. And the need to reform that to stop the general stagnation was well understood in the 80s. Of course Gorbachev and his gang failed in this endeavor and were hailed as traitors. All this is important to understand the mode of thinking of ziggers.
So the USSR already had a form of cargo cultism vis à vis of Marxism and historical materialism, and now the ziggoids entertain a form of cargo cultism vis-à-vis of the USSR. Only they don't have any of the pragmatism, most likely because they have no practical reason to assess if the intelligence about their enemies is good, and what lesson history can teach them so they will succeed in their struggle. Because you see their struggle is fundamentally cultural, their fight is on internet, their enemies are other posters, the worst thing they have to loose is a bit of pride, and they can leave whenever by the push of a button. There are no stakes. It is a fight to prove the USSR was
good so the K/D ratio of the WW2 is made up by nazis, that "communism" is inherently
superior because it is the "most advanced mode of production" which means the NVA/Viet Cong crushed the United States militarily, and that the United States is a
paper tiger producing nothing more than hamburgers and the occasional "wunderwaffe" - which doesn't work by the way because it's an imperialist weapon.
In short it's because they are turbo online cargo cultists.
>>3196People here have at most a vague idea of what those words mean, they just picked them up and thought they were cool so they just drop them in conversation whenever they get the chance to seem smart
>And why are ziggas so susceptible to this?Why are terminally online retards susceptible to retardation? A mystery.
Ukraine is bringing back old soviet artillery because they're running out of more modern Soviet ones and more modern NATO ones are being destroyed or lack ammuniiton.
Украинские артиллеристы начали применять на фронте 100-мм советские полевые пушки БС-3 https://topwar.ru/228619-ukrainskie-artilleristy-nachali-primenjat-na-fronte-100-mm-sovetskie-polevye-pushki-bs-3.htmlThese are literally WW2 artillery pieces
>>3879>They controlled more one year and a half agoNo, they didn't. having troops in an area =/= controlling it.
>>3877 >Ukraine is literally supported by the stockpiles from all of NATO on top of old Soviet stockpiles and in spite of this failed to break through even the first Russian lines and are losing equipment so rapidly that they're dragging out decommissioned weapons. This is the same retarded narrative that burgers use regarding Afghanistan and the Mujahed/Taliban fighters, ignoring that they were literally armed and trained by the CIA with immense US budget and the Pakistani airforce supporting them.
If anything, considering the relatively small number of forces Russia has deployed its a demonstration of Russia's capabilities in a long-term war, wherein their stockpiles are being refilled and upgraded while NATO is literally losing division's worth of munitions, expensive modern weaponry and platoons of soldiers serving unofficially.
>>3880>No, they didn't.Yes they did
Btw NATO has deployed exactly zero troops in the front lines, although likely there are some delta glow assholes out there working as "voluntaries", this is just not something that can be hidden. In Afghanistan the Soviet Union deployed a fraction of the personnel Russia is deploying in Ukraine although they had a better industrial base, a way more competent military and a kinda friendly central government here. "Kinda" because they still assassinated its leader on paranoiac grounds which wasn't taken well by everyone and fueled accusations of imperialism - something China used to justify helping the Mujahedin.
The lack of troops Russia has deployed and their reliance on unreliable PMCs showed major issues in intelligence assessment of what would be needed, a fragile political system - which is expected from a hollowed out reactionary rump state - and a general inability to properly mobilize military forces, not a masterful genius plan.
>>3882>posts the same retarded maps without understanding the context of what a defensive line is>Doesn't understand how these Again, that's not what CONTROL means. Being present in the area is not the same as controlling it in military terms. This is like saying the US controlled the Afghan territory back during the war, except they didn't because Talib insurgents were all but freely running about in that area. A controlled military area would be something like the territories we see in the October Map, those areas were and remain in Russian CONTROL, because Ukraines military is nonexistant and unable to even penetrate those areas. Whereas the majority of the "lost territories" were places that were literal hotbeds of fighting and were going back n forth from Ukrainian to Russian hands and back again over the course of days, because they were areas of disputed control and Russian offensive manuevers.
>NATO has deployed exactly zero troopsHundreds of soldiers from British SAS, US Marines ,Polish military service members etc. are operating directly on the frontlines and even film video of themselves, and Russians post photos of their IDs and corpses. If you think that they're not there with the sanction of their respective NATO militaries, you're either an idiot or a glowie posting in bad faith.
>In Afghanistan the Soviet Union deployed a fraction of the personnel Russia is deploying in Ukraine The number of Soviet soldiers deployed in the Afghan war over its decade, was 130K, the SVO has deployed about double that, so 1/2 is not a small fraction. Moreover the Russian military is fighting against what still remains of the largest military in Europe, excluding itself, which itself had a significant industrial base and which has direct financial and supplies from all of NATO. The USSR was still beating the Mujahed's because at the end of the day they were still a bunch of terrorists with some CIA training and supplies, and not a formal military.
>The lack of troops Russia has deployed and their reliance on unreliable PMCs Wagner troops have been reliable. Prigozhin was immediately removed as soon as he began his delusions of grandeur. Moreover Wagner's deployment is no more than 50K, compared to the Russian militaries 300K or so. Many of Wagner's forces did not follow Prigozhin either and quickly integrated back into the Russian army.
>a fragile political system - which is expected from a hollowed out reactionary rump state Oh boy it's this shite again. You got BTFO on this so many times on leftypol, so you bitch about it in any other thread. It's tiresome to hear this nonsense. Russia's government is by no means ideal, and I have many problems with it, but this description is beyond hyperbolic and is just nonsensical libshit.
>a general inability to properly mobilize military forces>major issues in intelligence assessment of what would be neede This applies to the first 6 months wherein the Russian military relaxed too soon because of Ukraine apparently opening to peace talks, and withdrawing forces from the North, only for Ukraine to renege on this, execute its diplomats and go full nazi with NATO support and encouragement. And yet the Ukrainians are the ones losing far more troops, the Ukrainians are the ones that have lost key strongholds and the Ukrainians are losing all cohesion in military and economic areas. Without NATO support (ranging from US drones providing targeting information, to NATO military stores of ammunition and vehicles being plundered for use in Ukraine, to unmarked NATO military personell fighting there) Ukraine would collapse overnight. Ukraine's government has literally admitted this as fact and US DoD agrees.
On the use of the D-1 and other older guns by Russian supported forces, primarily by the LNR and DNR autonomous units.
The Lugansk forces posted photos of what they fired from the D-1. Shells manufactured in 1939! They spent the entirety of WWII somewhere. They wrote that it was scary to shoot, but everything worked out. There was a TV report from the D-1 position. The shells looked simply ancient, from the Second World War. Shooting these from something long-range and high-pressure is dangerous. So it’s “business as usual” - a good old howitzer in use and a supply of shells that you can’t shoot with anything else. Why waste the life-resource of modern self-propelled guns if most of the tasks of artillery are not pinpoint strikes or counter-battery warfare, but work along the front line, through enemy minefields in the event of an attack? Let Msta, Coalition, Pion work in the rear, and D-1 can perfectly dismantle fortifications, for example at Avdeevka. In addition, we should not forget that we must have serious reserves in regions far from Ukraine. So not everything new goes to the front. That's the same reason T-55s and T-62s are being pulled out of storage, letting them rot for too long will make them pointless, so they may as well serve as extra armor and gun-power and let the Russian military spare their newer tech for such tasks. It also provides a good resource to give to the Donbass militias as a localized military force, capable enough to provide defense behind the front lines, even if not cutting-edge combat capability.
https://topwar.ru/229097-znachitelnye-poteri-v-amerikanskoj-presse-kommentirujut-primenenie-gaubicy-d-1-rossijskimi-vojskami.htmlhttps://simplicius76.substack.com/p/sitrep-102723-ukraines-prospects>There are several important Russian breakthroughs in Avdeevka, which are now being bitterly confirmed by Ukrainian sources. It’s now without doubt that both sides have gone “all in” and Avdeevka has in fact become the de facto central battlefield to define the latter part of this year.>Before I wasn’t certain whether Avdeevka may just be a ruse or misdirection from Russian command, or perhaps even a ‘testing of the waters’ just to see if it’s worth committing a large force there, sort of how Ugledar was in early 2023. They never meant Ugledar to be a massive “all in” committed operation, unless the early tests proved that Ukrainian defenses there were weak.>But here, it has become clear that Russia has gone all in and will not stop until it’s captured, no matter how stiff the Ukrainian defense is. In short, Avdeevka is set to become the new Mariupol, Lisichansk-Severodonetsk, and Bakhmut. >But some have correctly pointed out that there’s actually another, more distant battle which Avdeevka resembles much more closely. That of 2015’s Debaltsevo—famed for its unprecedented defeat of Ukraine’s JFO/ATO troops in what became one of the first big ‘cauldrons’ which placed the term on the map for a new generation of would-be armchair generals and war historians. Russia has been following OG Soviet tactics, rather than just raiding as some people seem to think, they encircled and cut-off the only roads and railroads that can supply the Ukrainian fortifications. These areas are hard to traverse off-road, making any off-road supply lines or escape impossible, even without the constant drone surveillance and missile strikes. This, with constant pressure from armored and mechanized brigades pushing in and artillery barrages battering the positions, means that Avdeevka is an inevitable Ukrainian loss. Unless the ВСУ manages to break-through the encirclement, there is no way for it to hold out against Russian forces. This is similar to what the German Wehrmacht did in the first months of the war with the USSR, which the Red Army returned years later when driving back the fascists - cutting off highways, railways and supply lines, pinning the army groups and battering them from all sides, without fully committing to an all out offense, wearing down the defenders and slowly crushing the encircled groups.
As for the retards that have no understanding of armored tactics, bitching about "muh Russian losses" and "stupid tank rushes" don't seem to understand that the videos we see are excerpts of the actual combat situation. Russian forces move forward under covering fire by artillery, drones and airforce support but it is impossible to completely suppress counter-battery fire and enemy artillery. It is impossible to clear every minefield, especially under-fire. Thus tank columns must move through specific bottlenecks and support infantry as they are supposed to and are inevitably going to take losses, sometimes heavy ones, as is the nature of storming a defensive line. The Russian army is breaking through the Ukrainians; the Poles, the Germans, the Italians and the US military analytics have admitted that Russia has been advancing, meter by meter.
https://topwar.ru/229027-russkie-vernulis-k-vypolneniju-slozhnyh-mehanizirovannyh-manevrov-v-italjanskoj-presse-podvodjat-itogi-boev-za-avdeevku.html https://topwar.ru/228991-russkie-operedili-ukrainskuju-rotaciju-polskij-voennyj-jekspert-priznal-perehod-iniciativy-na-vsej-linii-fronta-k-vs-rf.html https://topwar.ru/228983-na-ukraine-konchilis-zhelajuschie-voevat-polskij-general-zajavil-o-podgotovke-rossii-k-zimnemu-nastupleniju.html https://topwar.ru/228868-ukrainskie-istochniki-vs-rf-udalos-prodvinutsja-k-severu-ot-avdeevki-i-zanjat-uchastok-shirinoj-do-kilometra.html >>4495>/k/ope faggot got btfo on /ukraine/ so he came to /AKM/ thinking he wouldn't get dunked onLMAO.
>maneuvering fast and avoiding urban areas Absolutely meaningless, vague statement and not even a correct one.
>Russia obviously failed their initial offensive Russia was literally around Kiev and retracted its forces after Ukraine acquiesced to sitting down at Minsk, and then it proceeded to treacherously heel-face-turn on the peaceful conflict resolution and attacked Russian forces, forcing Russia to slowly take and hold land which is an entire different strategy compared to rapid force projection.
>>4495"OG soviet tactics" is just not a thing. WWII was fundamentally different from Afghanistan or Chechnya and also these differ from Ukraine and the cold war doctrine.
Russia is chiefly using Russian tactics, which are the result of the last two decades and exercised yearly, then changed in Ukraine. There is not much Soviet left in this.
One of the Ukrainian channels published photos of a new Russian planning module for unguided aerial bombs with a turbojet engine and fuel tank.
The markings on the hull say that it is a UMPB (Unified Planning and Barrage Module). The production date is February 2024.
By its concept - it is a direct analog of the American PJDAM announced only in the past. Except that we have already used our engine bomb.
In terms of range, the situation is as follows:
The Americans have a conventional JDAM - 15 miles from maximum altitude
JDAM-ER - 40 miles from maximum altitude.
PJDAM - 300 miles from maximum altitude.
The maximum recorded range of our JDAMs is about 30 kilometers from the front + distance from the launch site.
At the end of last year there was news that there were plans to increase this distance to 200-300 kilometers and, apparently, today's photos are just a consequence of these developments.
Advantages of UMPB over UMPK (in theory):
1. Increased range.
Possibility to put bridges in Zaporozhye cheaply and tastefully.
Possibility to launch a bomb into the building of the Supreme Council from Bryansk region.
2. Possibility of participation of new platforms: SU-25 in theory can become a carrier of this system and slightly unload other platforms.
Disadvantages of UMPB compared to UMPK:
1. Price.
2. Speed and volume of production.
It would be simply unprofitable to make a rain of fire out of them as in Avdiivka. Therefore, UMPB is more of an analog of cruise missiles and ballistics, which will:
1. Less long-range.
2. But much cheaper means for destroying targets from 0 to 300 kilometers behind the LBS and for overloading enemy air defense.
https://southfront.press/russia-has-developed-its-own-small-diameter-bomb-photos/ https://t.me/prolivstalina/9968 The results are already visible in 2024, with Ukrainian sources complaining about 16x increase of strikes by Russian bombs
https://southfront.press/16-times-more-russian-bombs-pounding-ukrainian-military-in-2024/So a month or so back NATO decided it was time to finally react to their rapidly depleting stockpiles, with the EU making a grand announcement about ramping up production.
https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-plan-war-ready-complex-european-defence-industrial-strategy/ This has already run into problems as many production lines haven't been operating at high capacity in decades and have lost the capability to ramp up. The lack of technical specialists are forcing the re-activation of retired technicians, mechanics and other people that have the experience and knowledge necessary to execute this plan, and there is a critical shortage in willing people, both because many have died and because teaching new cadres takes time. This is on top of the fact that many production facilities were shut down some time ago, with some being lost, destroyed or sold (such as the M-113 production line) and others being poorly preserved and requiring a lot of repairs and maintenance to bring back into service.
A recent study on ammunition production and restoring stockpiles found a lot of critical issues, pic and link rel.
https://www.csis.org/analysis/rebuilding-us-inventories-six-critical-systems>According to the leaked document of the US Department of Defense, it turned out that the radioactive vehicles were sent to the Foxtrot military base in Germany before they were transferred to the Armed Forces of Ukraine. They didn't even need to wait for the DU APFSDS rounds, the Ukrainians are already being irradiated by the armored vehicles themselves. Ironic.
It reminds me of Centurion 169041 which was used in a nuclear bomb test and then used in combat operations afterwards and its something the Aussies are proud of; sending their troops to fight in an irradiated tank. As a reminder the Centurion lacks CBRN (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear) protection and the Bradley only got NBC protection in the M2A1 variant, and it was always ad hoc as fuck because it doesn't use over-pressure, only filtration systems and lacks integrated radiological protection that every Soviet IFV had.
https://southfront.press/us-supplied-ukrainians-with-radiologicaly-contaminated-m2-bradley-vehicles-beregini/ https://tankhistoria.com/cold-war/169041-atomic-tank/ >>4769Wow, that's dishonest garbage journalism even for southfront standards. Just read (and understand) the fucking document.
Worthy of a reminder that Russia sends men to die in Desertcross 3000 offroad buggies every day. I'd take the irradiated Bradley.
>>4798>Muh southfront baaad>I'd take the Bradley>Le offroad buggies! <ignores that radiation is radiation and an IFV shouldn't be releasing it<Attacks article while explaining nothing<Thinks fast, unarmored vehicles used for flanking recon attacks is something new when Russian and formerly German/US armies did this as part of their doctrine in high-speed reconnaissance in conventional conditionsConsidering that F-35 and Abrams wankery in the main thread I should have expected this retarded take would be posted
>I'd take the irradiated Bradley. <Admits they're irradiated <Would still get in the blatant mine-unresistant death trap which screams "target me" rather than a small fast vehicleLOL, fucking /k/opers, retarded every time.
>>4800Document recommends the radioactivity (not great, not terrible) shall be decontaminated according to host nation standards before anything else is done with that Bradley.
Reading is easy, try it.
>>4801>reading is easy Yes, but as your face-value takes demonstrate, comprehension is not.
>the radioactivity (not great, not terrible<it's not that bad guyz cuz it doesn't instantly give you cancer! How compelling, lol.
Not even going to touch on how irradiated metal reacts to high kinetic/thermal impacts
>decontaminated according to host nation standards before anything else is done with that Bradley Which in reality means jack shit because the Ukrainians aren't going to bother doing so, and the Germans are only transferring the units. Hell, basic decontamination protocol just gets rid of surface radioactivity by removing particulates, which requires the removal of sensitive equipment prior, and reinstallment after. Fucking retard.
>>4804>just radioactive dust Really trying to undersell it, huh? This reads like the idiots thing to claim DU is 'totally' safe.
>Hell, even some Chernobyl machinery got returned after a good scrub down. I knew you'd bring that up, in no way is that comparable.
1) Most Soviet vehicles in close proximity to those operations were abandoned at Pripyat in open air lots, where they stayed until the Ukrainians grew desperate to use them a few years back.
2) Scrubbing procedures for Soviet vehicles were extensive, and along with their CBRN protection such as overpressure,, filters and outer+inner radiation lining using Boron and lead negated the radiation. Bradley's are poorly protected from radiation to begin with and proper scrubbing would require full ammunition and equipment removal to properly clean it all, which is a hell of a lot more complicated than on soviet vehicles.
>>4805You are just beyond clueless. Why should they clean the ammo, tech and disassemble other shit?
They take a geiger counter, identify the contaminated area, and clean only there. After the first cleaning cycle, they measure again and continue cleaning if necessary.
You never ever just randomly disassemble and clean without measuring beforehand because that just creates a bigger mess than targeted decontamination of the affected areas.
>>4806>You are just beyond clueless. Ad hominum
>Why should they clean the ammo, tech and disassemble other shit? <Why clean ths insides of an irradiated vehicleGee billy, I dunno!
> identify the contaminated area That's not how decontamination works. You're decontaminated all over if you have a 'patch' of radioactivity when working at a nuclear plant, scrubbed thoroughly and for a long time.
>You never ever just randomly disassemble and clean without measuring I never said that you strawmanning fuck.
>>4629 >"Tornado-S" with the help of a D-30SN "bomb missile" defeated a warehouse in Sumy. The first photos of the consequences of a D-30SN UMPB strike that hit a large warehouse in Sumy appeared on the World Wide Web. According to information from the Russian military, the 300-mm glide control unit was launched using the 9M544, better known as the Tornado-S multiple rocket launcher. It was she who launched a hybrid two-stage projectile at an important military facility. The TG channel “Russian Weapons” wrote about this.>"In general terms, it worked like this: the upper stage on solid fuel elements was launched first, after which the D-30SN warhead was thrown to an altitude of up to 23 meters and received a speed of Mach 000. As soon as the high altitude ceiling was reached, the solid propellant accelerator was discarded automatically using built-in squibs. After which the flight was already carried out along a flat motion vector with a progressive reduction in speed. As soon as the warhead slowed down to speeds of 4 km/h, the retractable wings switched into activation mode, having previously been hidden in the body. After which the projectile itself went into planning mode. The latter, according to indirect data, can fly 1100 kilometers at this stage of the flight. And if we take as the starting position, where the length of the first stage of flight with a working solid propellant upper stage is up to 140 km in the early modifications of the D-60SN, then the total maximum launch range of the UAB will be equal to an effective 30 km. What makes this type of guided munition extremely dangerous for the Ukrainian Armed Forces."https://dzen.ru/a/Zhydu_MAtgZV-7Fw https://t.me/RussianArms/6349 >>4693- The US DoD published its first National Defense Industrial Strategy report, detailing major problems preventing America from mobilizing its industry to out-compete Russia and China;
- Most problems identified by the report stem from the DoD's dependence on private industry, yet private industry itself was never identified as a problem;
- The foreign and domestic policy is based on profit-driven prioritizing, creating industry that pursues profits at the cost of fulfilling that industry's role in providing goods and services for society;
- Russia and China maintain massive state-owned enterprises not only to manufacturing arms and ammunition, but also downstream suppliers for providing raw materials and goods;
References:
>NEO - Fatal Flaws Undermine America’s Defense Industrial Base (February 15, 2024): https://journal-neo.su/2024/02/15/fatal-flaws-undermine-americas-defense-industrial-base/>US Department of Defense - The National Defense Industrial Strategy (NDIS) (2023): https://www.businessdefense.gov/NDIS.html>NY Times - Russia Overcomes Sanctions to Expand Missile Production, Officials Say (September 2023): https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/13/us/politics/russia-sanctions-missile-production.html>RFE/RL - Satellite Images Suggest Russia Is Ramping Up Production Capacity For Its War Against Ukraine (November 2023): https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-ramping-up-war-production/32658857.html>RUSI - Russian Military Objectives and Capacity in Ukraine Through 2024 (February 13, 2024): https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/russian-military-objectives-and-capacity-ukraine-through-2024>The National Interest - MBT-70 - The German-American Super Tank That Never Came to Be (April 2021): https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/mbt-70-german-american-super-tank-never-came-be-182224>The Guardian - ‘A lot higher than we expected’: Russian arms production worries Europe’s war planners (February 15, 2024):https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/15/rate-of-russian-military-production-worries-european-war-planners
>The first-ever US Department of Defense National Defense Industrial Strategy (NDIS) confirms what many analysts have concluded in regard to the unsustainable nature of Washington’s global-spanning foreign policy objectives and its defense industrial base’s (DIB) inability to achieve them.>The report lays out a multitude of problems plaguing the US DIB including a lack of surge capacity, inadequate workforce, off-shore downstream suppliers, as well as insufficient “demand signals” to motivate private industry partners to produce what’s needed, in the quantities needed, when it is needed.>In fact, the majority of the problems identified by the report involved private industry and its unwillingness to meet national security requirements because they were not profitable.>For example, the report attempts to explain why many companies across the US DIB lack advanced manufacturing capabilities, claiming:>Many elements of the traditional DIB have yet to adopt advanced manufacturing technologies, as they struggle to develop business cases for needed capital investment.>In other words, while adopting advanced manufacturing technologies would fulfill the purpose of the US Department of Defense, it is not profitable for private industry to do so.>Despite virtually all the problems the report identifies stemming from private industry’s disproportionate influence over the US DIB, the report never identifies private industry itself as a problem.>If private industry and its prioritization of profits is the central problem inhibiting the DIB from fulfilling its purpose, the obvious solution is nationalizing the DIB by replacing private industry with state-owned enterprises. This allows the government to prioritize purpose over profits.>Yet in the United States and across Europe, the so-called “military industrial complex” has grown to such proportions that it is no longer subordinated to the government and national interests, but rather the government and national interests are subordinated to it. Literally the process of how Nazi Germany the German Industrialists collaborated with the Nazi Party in the 1930s to the point that the word Privatization was coined. To replenish Westoid stockpiles and weapons, they'll be forced to supply their private Military Industrial Complex enterprise with the cheapest labor possible, probably prisoners. Nazis were forced into forced labor not because they just wanted to be evil or they lacked labor per se, but because their labor was highly inefficient because German private MIC enterprise refused to make any improvements. Hell, they forced an entire nation to adopt a "healthy diet" which saw a decreased consumption of meat* - hence the myth about vegetarian Hitler. He did that policy because he was a fucktard who made people starve for the reason of decreasing labor costs. It's really fucking reminiscent of what Europeans are going through, the insect proteins propaganda, saving on electricity and water bills not by improving the industries but making consumers consume less, shit like that
*Source: The Nazi Economic Recovery 1932-1938, R. J. Overy. Table XV: Consumption in Working-Class Families 1927 and 1937 (annual)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrlMFFXmbxQ >The Fatal Flaw Undermining America's Defense Industrial Base Embed
>28 Febuary 2024 Pentagon report on National Defense Industrial Strategy: >It is clear that the European armaments industry is in a mess - the chaos of arms deliveries set to continue >This report from the Pentagon shows that it is much the same in the US>“Fatal flaws undermine America’ Defense Industrial base”https://journal-neo.su/2024/02/15/fatal-flaws-undermine-americas-defense-industrial-base/https://www.businessdefense.gov/NDIS.htmlRecognition spreads in US that significant industrial scale re arming of the on shore production of the range of basic products to equip and sustain an industrial scale army is an fantasy – even or especially at the Pentagon. Nothing new, but the DOD is increasingly prepared to admit failure
Brian Berletic writes:
>“The report lays out a multitude of problems plaguing the US DIB including a lack of surge capacity, inadequate workforce, off-shore downstream suppliers, as well as insufficient “demand signals” to motivate private industry partners to produce what’s needed, in the quantities needed, when it is needed. In fact, the majority of the problems identified by the report involved private industry and its unwillingness to meet national security requirements because they were not profitable. For example, the report attempts to explain why many companies across the US DIB lack advanced manufacturing capabilities, claiming: Many elements of the traditional DIB have yet to adopt advanced manufacturing technologies, as they struggle to develop business cases for needed capital investment. In other words, while adopting advanced manufacturing technologies would fulfill the purpose of the US Department of Defense, it is not profitable for private industry to do so. Despite virtually all the problems the report identifies stemming from private industry’s disproportionate influence over the US DIB, the report never identifies private industry itself as a problem.”NDIS
>“Many elements of the traditional DIB have yet to adopt advanced manufacturing technologies, as they struggle to develop business cases for needed capital investment.” >“Over the last decade, the DoD has struggled to curtail adversarial sourcing and burnish the integrity of defense supply chains. Despite these efforts, dependence on adversarial sources of supply has grown. DoD continues to lack a comprehensive effort for mitigating supply chain risk." >“The labor market lacks the required number of skilled workers to meet defense production demand while driving innovation at all levels. This shortfall is becoming exacerbated as baby boomers retire, and younger generations show less interest in manufacturing and engineering careers.” Arestovich's rather insightful analysis of the tactical reasons Ukraine's counter-offensive not only did not achieve results but failed catastrophically.
TL;DR: Battalion Tactical Group retards BTFO by Soviet large-scale combined arms doctrine.
>aTranslated Interview START1. - Avdiivka was stormed by three Russian armies + a tank division
*.
These are permanent units with a unified logistics and management system.
With us, everything above the brigade is assembled management bodies.
2. We saw elements of operational camouflage when creating a grouping/outfit of forces.
Deception and cunning are in the best traditions of the Red Army.
3. Massing of forces and means.
The Russians are strengthening the artillery capabilities of their formations and associations - even before the creation of artillery brigades as part of the combined arms army.
The number of cabs used is growing every month.
In the Avdiivka defense area, 250 units arrived in one day.
The irretrievable losses of the Russian group during the capture of Avdiivka are ~ 30% of the group.
At the same time, they took the fortified area.
Soviet norms are 12-20% for an army operation.
Avdiivka is their first success at the operational and tactical level, associated with the drift towards the Soviet system.
The deadlock at the front, which Valery Zaluzhny spoke about in the article "Economist", has been overcome not by technical methods, but by organizational ones.
When they fully enter the Soviet system, we can expect that they will begin to gain success at the operational level, because it is ideal for this type of war - under their given initial conditions. And they need about five such operations in order for us to lose the entire Left Bank.
They are increasing their capabilities and reducing the time between operations, which a year ago amounted to up to six months for concentration and preparation, will be reduced to four months or less if there are no strategic black swans (you need to plan based on what will not happen). I am not the only one who has been saying since the very beginning of the war that Russia's problem in this war is that they set Soviet goals without having Soviet capabilities. And now they are gradually pulling up the possibilities to the Soviet ones, as far as possible.
And all our (and their, by the way) dreams about Western structures, Western technology and Western strategy are complete fornication. We currently have neither Soviet nor Western capabilities, but they are catching up to the Soviet ones. What is our answer?
Valery Zaluzhny was never allowed to form divisions and armies - formations and associations of permanent personnel, with their own logistics and permanent management bodies, capable of solving the task of breaking through long-term, layered enemy defenses and creating/maintaining such defenses.
"This is against NATO standards!"
Idiots, instead of creating a national military school, under our specific conditions, choosing the best from different systems, are killing the army under a concept that:
- we will never see,
- which is not suitable for large-scale wars on its own.
In the near future, we will see the consequences these "… NATO standards" in full.
>Translated Interview END As he bitterly explains, NATO standards aren't for fighting peer countries, but inferior militaries with quick precise shock and awe strikes and with minimum expenditure, a policy that began with the Vietnam fiasco and influenced US (and so NATO) doctrine for decades to come. However, even against an inferior military, if they can pull NATO forces into a protracted conflict, NATO will not be able to establish control. In essence NATO tactics are pure Aufstragtaktik autism.
All this is without even mentioning Ukrainian criticisms of Western tech being either inferior to Soviet contemporaries/equivalents or being ill-suited to the Ukrainian environment, with the best tech having little difference to Soviet tech, only with Ukrainians have to train to readjust to NATO standard equipment as opposed to Soviet standard.
>>3900Ukraine recently received a batch of M1117s. Several have already been destroyed and have basically no superiority to the much older BRDM-2. Even the Abrams gets such criticism, and the F-16 is already seen as such, with Ukrainian pilots that have flown them calling it inferior to the Soviet Su-27 and a glass cannon, an opinion even the USAF shares.
https://southfront.press/us-pilot-warns-kiev-regime-about-f-16s-deficiencies-calls-it-prima-donna/ https://topwar.ru/238635-silno-ustupaet-sovetskim-ukrainskie-voennye-raskritikovali-amerikanskie-tanki-abrams.html https://southfront.press/ukrainian-pilot-find-performance-of-western-fighters-inferior-to-russian-jets/ This isn't even going into the fact that Ukraine does not have the facilities to repair Western tech, being forced to ship Leopard 2s and Bradleys back to Germany and the USA, if they can recover them at all.
>>4486 *See
>>3915It's become widely reported as of April 25th (2024) that the Abrams tanks sent to Ukraine have been withdrawn from the front-lines after several have been taken out in a row. The Ukrainian soldiers have been very unfavorable of the vehicle, despite how lauded it was in their propaganda videos, months before deployment.
https://southfront.press/ukraine-withdrew-american-made-abrams-tanks-from-front-report/>>4824 >>3900>All this is without even mentioning Ukrainian criticisms of Western tech being either inferior to Soviet contemporaries/equivalents or being ill-suited to the Ukrainian environment, with the best tech having little difference to Soviet tech, only with Ukrainians have to train to readjust to NATO standard equipment as opposed to Soviet standard. >3900Also see
>>4692 and
>>4634 as further examples of this, vid rel.
>>4823 >>4824>From 1914 to 1918, Germany and Austria-Hungary produced up to 680 million shells and the industries of the Allies France, Britain, Russia (to October 1917), Italy, the U.S. and Canada, produced up to 790 million shells (the statistics vary greatly). The U.S. produced between 30 million and 50 million of these shells.<[2023] - European Commissioner for the Internal Market Thierry Breton suggested that Europe could now make some 400,000 rounds annually. Estonia’s Pevkur, speaking at a November media roundtable, put the figure between 600,000 and 700,000—and said it would reach one million rounds in 2024.So what happened? Even France, who had much of its industrial regions occupied by the Germans, were producing 200,000 shells A DAY by the end of WWI. That's half of current European annual output in a single day. Why are Europeans today struggling to mass-produce something as simple as an artillery shell, despite managing just fine 100+ years ago, let alone during the WW-2 period?
The answer is relatively simple. Besides NATO's strategy of warfare shifting into non-mass combat tactics, the Neo-libs off-shored a lot of heavy industry to China. Basically unbolting the smelters and accompanying industrial factories, and shipped them away. A technical factor may also play a role. Metal production changed energy inputs from coal to electricity. That enabled more sophisticated metallurgy but also induced a decline in quantity, do to insufficient electricity production. The colossal error of refusing to build out nuclear power is on display once again. Note that this is another reason why the USSR took longer to produce super-high quality commodity products and so on, as they focused on raising productive capabilities along with technological improvement, because mass-production of high-quality products without existing infrastructure could not be done without otherwise exploiting other countries or the people, something that the Imperialist West had no problem doing. A big part is also that military industry was state-run or directed 100 years ago. The privatized weapons industry has different goals, capitalists do not want to produce more shells, they want increased military spending to drive up prices for the existing shell production. We see this in Nazi Germany and its highly privatized industry; German production was so focused on wunderwaffe precision production, which brought more money to industrialists like Krupp, that it lost sight of the necessity of mass-production and field-use; thus we got over-engineering super-tanks like the Panther, with glaring weaknesses and poor production numbers.
Also privatized military industry is making a killing from ludicrously overpriced military supply
1986: US military buys toilet seat for 640 bucks
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-07-30-vw-18804-story.html2018: US military buys toilet seat for 10000 bucks
https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-10000-toilet-seat-cover-doesnt-pass-smell-test-dod-flushing-taxpayerThe Chinese and Russian militaries likely don't pay more than 10-20 bucks for a toilet-seat.
The idea behind a lot of neoliberal doctrine regarding this is the false bourgeois theory of "absolute and comparative advantage". It would support the idea that since the US handles shell production and steel, it would actually be negative to develop your own manufacturing. It is this same ideology driving globalists to keep Latin America an agrarian cesspool.
The Russian case
https://zenodo.org/records/4422709Alt Link:
https://scholar.archive.org/work/4vnd6hplsbf7tetlv2hxpkhybeGeneral historical critique
https://critiqueofcrisistheory.wordpress.com/responses-to-readers-austrian-economics-versus-marxism/world-trade-and-the-false-theory-of-comparative-advantage/TL;DR: These are the problems of the modern Military Industrial Complex (MIC): A Neo-Liberal socio-economic push resulting in outsourcing and decay.
>>4897>Basically unbolting the smelters One 155mm M107 shell weighs about 38 kg of steel and 7 kg of TNT.
One million shells weigh 38.000 tons, which is 12 hours of the yearly German steel smelting.
One million shells contain 7.000 tons of TNT, which is days or weeks worth of what Dyno Nobel or Orica release on the civilian markets.
The only reason why the west can't and won't churn out millions of shells a year is lack of revenue and reinvestment once the war is over. The actual industrial basis needed to make one, five or even 10 millilon shells is not an issue at all. They just don't do it because shell factories would collect dust without more wars and you can't heckin' do that to the investors.
I've noticed that most videos of tanks and AFVs being actually destroyed in Ukraine are either those that hit anti-tank mines, hit by artillery directly or destroyed after being mobility-killed an abandoned (or hit by ATGMs in weakspots). An example of that is vid rel where a Ukrainian drone drops an M-67 hand grenade into the open hatch of an abandoned T-90M near Chasov Yar. The tank got mobility killed and abandoned. It got hit but not penetrated with an ATGM to the right-hand turret cheek (you can see the detonated ERA).
>Inb4 "why don't they close the hatch!?Most modern tanks have spring assisted hatches to make opening them (and bailing) easier, so actually closing one takes a lot more than just a nudge. Besides even if it was easy, every millisecond spent not getting outta there increases the chance that closing that hatch will be the last thing you'll do, especially as the hatch is often used as a shield against bullets when leaving. During drills for escaping you are expected to GTFO as fast as possible and only grab your gear and assist any other survivors first. Even if you've got time, there's a human factor: You just got hit, there's probably smoke in the air, electronics might be sparking, hydraulic fluid leaking, your comrade may be wounded or straight up killed, you're really not thinking about a fucking hatch, you just get the fuck out.
Occasional kills of AFV on AFV combat happen, but most of it isn't tanks. A M2A2 ODS Bradley recently took out an MT-LB with its 25mm autocannon from behind, but the MT-LB is lightly armored troop tractor. Around the same time the Ukrainians claimed a Bradley took out a T-80BVM with a BGM-71 TOW, however the video footage only shows a TOW launch against a moving vehicle in blurry drone FLIR. Considering that the T-72M used by the Syrians was outright immune to the original TOW missile back in the 80s without any ERA or the thicker armor of the T-72B variant. and the T-80BVM's frontal armor (which is what is demonstrated as hit) is far better protected even against a TOW II. The day-time photograph of the supposed T-80 taken out is questionable but is at worst a mobility kill, as the tank isn't even burnt, only missing a track.
There's a few tank-tank battles but most are 1-hit kills, because only frontal armor on any MBT is survivable against another peer combatant tank, thus a T-72B has wrecked at least one Leopard 2A6 and one M1A1 SA Abrams and T-80s, T-90s, T-72s and T-64s have taken out one another mostly in single hits, usually hitting the side directly or off the 35 degree frontal face.
This is happening on both sides, the same video shows a T-80U of the ВCУ burnt out from a similar attack right next to the T-90M.
Drones on their own aren't taking out most Soviet tanks, only damaging them and occasionally mobility killing them (*link rel). Crews also take to abandoning their tanks as fast as possible, since its better to live and try to recover the tank later if possible than die for nothing. Despite NAFO-fags trying to portray this as "cowardly Russkies" (even though Ukrainians do this too) it's a fairly standard practice in peer combat situations. In WW-2 Soviet, German and American tankers did the same thing.
*A T-90M during an assault got hit by 3 FPV drones from behind but continued to operate without trouble.
https://topwar.ru/242202-rossijskij-tank-prodolzhivshij-vypolnjat-boevuju-zadachu-posle-neskolkih-popadanij-fpv-dronov-vsu-popal-v-kadr.html PS - removed audio because it was just shitty music thrown in.
>>4968It's one of the most well known incident of 1982 war. It's why the TOW missile was upgraded to BGM-71C (ITOW) with the extended probe, so as to increase HEAT penetration. BGM-71A and B variants only penetrated 430mm of RHA at best. The lowballed estimates of armor equivalent for the T-72 against HEAT warheads was 450mm for the frontal plate (600mm according to Soviet sources) and the same applies for the turret armor.
Mind you, this is for the T-72/T-72A/T-72M/T-72M1 and is lower than the armor protection of the T-72B variants.
Source on T-72 armor
- М. Б. Барятинский. Т-72. Уральская броня против НАТО. — Москва: Яуза, Коллекция, Эксмо, 2008.
https://www.labirint.ru/books/247101/ - S. Zaloga, M. Jerchel, S. Sewell. T-72 Main Battle Tank 1974—1993. — London: Osprey Publishing, 1993. — С. 39. — 48 с. — (New Vanguard № 6)
https://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.com/2015/06/the-armor-protection-of-t-72-tank.html http://mass-destruction-weapon.blogspot.com/2021/01/72.html >>4897>>4823 >>4824 Russia has recently published the amount of Western military equipment sent to Ukraine. The numbers are immense.
>In total, the Ukrainian army received about 800 tanks of Soviet and Western production, more than 3,5 thousand armored combat vehicles, about 1,5 thousand artillery pieces, about 270 MLRS, more than 250 anti-aircraft missile systems (SAM), 7,7 thousand portable Air defense systems, up to 290 thousand anti-tank weapons, 130 aircraft and helicopters, over 30 thousand UAVs. This is not easy to replace for the low production ability of the current Western military. The IRIS-T factory suffered a catastrophic fire recently, and the need to send Israel arms, as well as the growing New Caledonia conflict is also taking resources from these countries, meaning that stockpiles are depleting much faster than current production. By the time the Russian-Ukrainian war ends NATO will lack conventional combat ability by that point.
https://topwar.ru/242571-v-rossijskom-genshtabe-podschitali-kolichestvo-peredannoj-kievu-voennoj-tehniki-i-vooruzhenij-s-nachala-svo.html >>4957>A T-90M during an assault got hit by 3 FPV drones from behind but continued to operate without trouble. More details about the entire situation have been released, vid rel. Source is
https://www.youtube.com/@Alpha17/videos The channel isn't the most accurate in its analyses but it has some valid content.
Video Catbox:
https://files.catbox.moe/jsu7ro.mp4People are going to be confused as to why the tank was here and what the fuck was going on so I'll explain: Tanks patrol contested villages and check them for enemy armored vehicles and other things. In Russian doctrine this is often called Scouting Through Battle. Such actions, in principle, are not particularly dangerous for the tankers driving the T90M, because as we saw in this and previous videos, the tank copes very well with the task of protecting tankers, which means that you can always put more experienced people behind the wheel and do such checks for reconnaissance. As I understand it, the 1st tank is going on advance patrol (with damage and bailing of personnel), the second is driving behind it as a secondary patrol, but the artillery crew began to work on it and after that the 2nd tank begins to dodge the artillery, and the 3rd patrol vehicle comes in to help the second.
For those that thought the bailed tank crew and infantry died from the artillery strike, if you look carefully at 4:33 Looking carefully at the house with an orange roof on the top left (this is a landmark), at 4:40 a house with this roof is clearly visible that the incoming shell flies over and impacts past this house. So it's quite likely they survived that hit.
The video author says that the Firing Guidance System of the tank was damaged so it began to rotate its turret randomly but I doubt that. I think more likely the commander/gunner was turning the turret rapidly to get a 360 degree view and possibly fire on attackers, because they don't know if it's a drone or an enemy AFV firing on them. Turning mechanisms and the like are buried pretty deep in the turret/turret-ring, so I doubt a drone would easily penetrate that deep.
A strange part was the lack of smoke grenades and curtains used but its possible that they weren't used because it would cause more disorientation for the drivers than for the enemy drones, and not only reduce visibility and force the tank to drive slower but also cause it to go off the cleared road and hit a mine.
As an addendum regarding drones still hitting tanks despite the presence of heavy Electronic Warfare - many drones used for anti-tank strikes have primitive A.I. guidance that will take over when connection is lost and use the camera on the drone to guide into the selected target.
>>4991Really the only thing that is of major concern in terms of production is PGMs. Its always PGMs. Practically all estimates for if there was a war between America & China suggest that within 1-2 weeks they'll be almost entirely out of PGMs. One other thing is artillery munitions, its part of the reason why Russia has shifted away from using Battalion Tactical Groups as a form of organization and also procured artillery shells from North Korea. Systems aren't the primary concern, its the munitions the systems fire.
The United States has many systems like the M113 in storage doing absolutely nothing. It does not even want these, really. It doesn't fit into its modern doctrine, they're outdated, and they're just a drain on the budget to keep them around. So instead of sending them to its police force, they send it to Ukraine. These aren't ever going to be reproduced again, the DoD just wants them out.
>New Caledonia conflict is also taking resources from these countriesNot really, this is purely a concern for France, and even then I'd probably guess its colonial crusade in West Africa probably consumes far more resources and manpower.
>>5037>this is purely a concern for FranceFrance is a major NATO power militarily, and by taking French military resources, it reduces French military strength, and so NATO strength.
>It doesn't fit into its modern doctrine, they're outdated The thing is, they aren't. The M-113 production line was exported to other countries and is still being produced. The upgrades to it make it a pretty good APC and in terms of transportability, speed, off-road etc. it's capable of keeping up with American armored units such as the Abrams, and is superior to the Stryker which it replaced, or the Humvee, which is a terrible vehicle tbh, even with the up-armoring upgrades (that kill the chassis and engine life). The M-113 is also cheaper to upgrade, maintain and build than the Bradley or Stryker, and is very versatile, which is why its still used. The USA does want to get rid of it, but they're idiots for doing so because they're still stuck on the "wunderwaffen" nonsense that cannot be feasibly built in numbers required to sustain a real peer-combat conflict.
>Systems aren't the primary concernPerhaps, point is that NATO doesn't seem to realize this. They cannot produce the munitions required. The USA MIGHT be able to restore production but that's in the future and even then the lack of artillery factories has lead to artisan production, Europe is a lost cause, they don't have the ability to produce the necessary explosive filler even with artisan production. Britain is reducing the number of tanks it has in reserve and active service, Japan, France, Spain, Germany etc. are retiring hundreds of older military tech but have nothing to replace it with. Even Poland can't and it has spent decades of militaristic focus trying to replace and stock up on new weaponry.
https://topwar.ru/243168-britanskoe-izdanie-nazvalo-prichinu-po-kotoroj-ukraina-ostanetsja-bez-artillerijskih-snarjadov.html As British Sky News reports and as previously mentioned ITT, Russia is producing 3x more artillery than Europe, for about 4x lower cost. It's getting rid of old stock simultaneously producing new stock. The West is not doing this and with the conflict in the Middle East, the tensions around Taiwan, the increasing tensions across Africa and now New Caledonia and Haiti, NATO and its allies are spread thin.
A stryker was destroyed along with a crossing bridge recently. It proves a point made in
>>2374 - the lack of amphibious capability. The BTR-80 series or BMPs could have forded that little stream on the fly, no bridge needed. Such bridges are ample targets, I'm more than willinvg to bet that Russian drone surveillance saw the bridge but decided to not destroy it and wait for a bigger target to come, killing 2 targets with one strike. And yet redditors and /k/opers will claim that "amphibious capability isn't useful anymore" because some amphibious APCs got taken out during combat near a river.
https://topwar.ru/243643-amerikanskij-btr-stryker-vsu-unichtozhen-vmeste-s-perepravoj-cherez-reku-volchja-v-volchanske.html As a side note, there's ZOV sites popping up for different Ukrainian cities:
https://news-kharkov.ru//society/2024/06/02/105601.html>>4897Germany and the West have been ramping up production… or at least attempting to, with new tanks and equipment for the next generation of mechanized warfare. Things like the Leopard 2A7 and 2A8, the Panther prototype, the Ascalon turret etc. However in the light of over 11 thousand companies going bankrupt and the immense production problems mentioned ITT, I have doubts the German War Machine and the rest of Europe's is up to the task of mass producing these expensive, heavy behemoths. A good example of this is the Katana smart-munition having severe delays in delivery to being accepted into service.
https://topwar.ru/244906-zapadnaja-pressa-v-pervoe-polugodie-2024-goda-v-germanii-obankrotilis-11-tysjach-kompanij.html 11000 companies
https://topwar.ru/244960-nemeckoe-izdanie-minoborony-frg-planiruet-zakupit-dopolnitelno-bolee-dvuh-millionov-artillerijskih-boepripasov.htmlGerman military buying over 2 million Artillery shells
https://topwar.ru/245211-revoljucionnyj-boepripas-poterjal-v-dalnosti-poleta-sorvan-srok-razrabotki-novogo-vysokotochnogo-snarjada-katana.html Katana round issues.
https://topwar.ru/244973-mozhet-poluchit-140-mm-pushku-francija-predstavila-novyj-tank-leclerc-evolution.htmlLeclerc Ascalon turret demonstrator
I find it kinda funny that Europe is trying to develop its own independent HIMARS equivalent, that like the other developments in recent times are extremely over-engineered, complicated and expensive, while at the same time, creating issues in the already twisted up NATO supply chains, rather than just standardizing to a few sets of weapons and equipment. The fact that productive capabilities of current Europe are significantly down is pointedly being ignored. The design itself is okay, the Israeli's may be many things but they know how to engineer good technology and their Lynx is a decent example of multi-functionality. However this only works within the framework of limited combat. These systems are not easy to mass produce, and the modifications of the EuroPULS are even more applicable in this regard, complicating production. Sure it has more rockets than the HIMARS but that's not a high bar given that the latter only carries 6 rockets or 1 ATACMs, and the M270 only carries 12 or 2 ATACMs or 6 and 1 ATACMS. This is seen in the fact that despite being unveiled in 2018, there have been less than 50 produced. Compare this to any Soviet MLRS system or Chinese system of similar capability and you see a gross lack of capability. Like every other fancy Western Weapon, it works, but it won't be enough, not in the numbers produced. The folly of Nazi Germany and its Wunderwaffen is being repeated.
https://topwar.ru/244931-konkurent-amerikanskogo-kompleksa-himars-franko-nemeckaja-rszo-europuls-predlagaetsja-na-prodazhu.htmlhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0txGR5sv4w >Как АЗ*В штурмует наши траншеи? | Разведчик разбирает видео из Кременной | Опасный Бизнес This channel is led by a Russian soldier who fought in SVO and he makes videos about the war. Vid rel is his analysis of an Azov propaganda video of them storming a Russian trench.
moe file is a 720p version. Full res is higher than I can upload.
https://files.catbox.moe/37np4d.mp4 So in the context of ukraine receiving some F16, I was thinking about how air defence has progressed enough that modern jets have kinda become overkill (and even worse, overpriced) for the task they can actually accomplish without being shot down, namely, being launch platform for long range missiles and doing anti recon/suicide drone patrol duty (like seen in the iran demonstration attack against israel).
For these task, using a full blown, state of the art, 5th gen stealth jet airplane is completely unnecessary and a waste of resources. A ww2 style fighter would do the job just as well for a fraction of the price.
And indeed, ukrainian seem to have apparently used an old yak 52 training plane for shooting down drones with great success. So much that russia apparently shot an iskander at it.
Given that you can buy a yak for around 50.000€ and an iskander is estimated at around 3.000.000$, I think theres a lot of potential in going back to cheap non jet aircrafts for many tasks.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/07/18/deploying-drones-and-missiles-russia-is-trying-to-blow-up-ukraines-world-war-i-style-yak-52-dogfighter/>>5262>ukrainian seem to have apparently used an old yak 52 training plane for shooting down drones with great success. >forbesLMAO no. Russia shot down those several times. Jet fighters are needed, as are slower low-tech aircraft, as are SAMs. This is what combined warfare is. The USSR leaned heavily on air-defenses and made the best in the world, but it still had a significant aircraft fleet, because air defenses alone are not getting the job done. Drones have vulnerabilities, and low-tech strike aircraft are niche.
>For these task, using a full blown, state of the art, 5th gen stealth jet airplane is completely unnecessary and a waste of resources.True, which is why the Su-57 has been used against priority high-threat targets rather than doing what the Su-34 and Su-25 do. the Su-57 can absolutely mount the same weapons as those two, but it's a waste of time.
Additionally only low tech aircraft is a good way of high losses in a high-tech peer-conflict, or even a near-peer conflict. In the Gulf-war the A-10 had some of the highest loss rates of ANY aircraft in that war and many of its missions were accomplished by F-16s and F-15Ds at standoff ranges, in part because the US coalition lacked proper SAM defenses and relied only on air-superiority rather than a combined arms approach, they were lucky the Iraqis were weaker and more disorganized.
>>5264>LMAO no.no what ? do you deny you can shoot down a recon drone with a simple motor airplane ?
>Russia shot down those several timeseven if they did, the idea was more using it into your own safe airspace. And using any missile to shoot it down, you're still paying too much.
>Jet fighters are needed, as are slower low-tech aircraft, as are SAMs. This is what combined warfare isno shit, way to miss the point.
>rather than doing what the Su-34 and Su-25 do.any jet fighter will be a magnitude more expensive than a regular motor plane
>only low tech aircraftI didnt advocate for having ONLY them. But do you really need a jet for lobbing FAB-500s ?
>high lossesif they're 200x less expensive, thats still a bargain a war planner can make
>>5270 Your spacing is ass, please don't do this.
>no what ? You realize that people can scroll up and see exactly what I'm saying "no" to right? The fact is that Ukraine has failed to shoot down drones with its trainers, since it's literally pulling WW-1 shit, with people firing handguns out of open cockpits. There's literally a Russian drone video where they try and fail to shoot it down.
>even if they did, the idea was more using it into your own safe airspace. *laughs in long range SAM*
You realize that Ukraine has been using very long range stand-off weapons like cruise missiles and are STILL getting shot down, right? Only a few days ago an Su-35 shot down a MiG-29 - which was using a HARM missile in a long-range ground-strike - from over 200km away, with an R-37. Earlier in the war the S-300V4 set a similar record kill from a similar distance of over 200km. An S-400 shot down an Su-27 over Kiev earlier in the war from 150km away. Pantsir, Osa and Tor SPAAG/SAMs have shot down numerous low-flying missiles, drones and other aircraft.
>using any missile to shoot it down, you're still paying too much.If you're an idiot using patriot anti-ballistic long-range missiles against drones. A single Tor missile costs maybe a couple thousand dollars. A single yak-52 costs 50-100 thousand dollars, so you're dead wrong.
>way to miss the point.I didn't miss your point. I don't disagree in the necessity of low-tech aircraft, but not like Ukraine is doing, and frankly an attack chopper would do just as well, if not better.
>any jet fighter will be a magnitude more expensive than a regular motor plane Any jet fighter would also be magnitudes more effective.
>do you really need a jet for lobbing FAB-500s In an SAM-heavy air-space like Ukraine? YES.
>if they're 200x less expensive They're not less expensive than the old S-75s and other old ass missiles that took them down cost, nor are they significantly less costly than F-16s. The mid-age F-16s were 25-30 million dollars back then, the A-10 was 18 million dollars, not a significant difference. The Su-25 is 11 million compared to the Su-34's 36 million, a much larger and better difference, though still not 200x.
Unique IPs: 106