[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/AKM/ - Guns, weapons and the art of war.

"War can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun." - Chairman Mao
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon


 No.1345[Last 50 Posts]

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".

 No.1319

File: 1645734863984.png (146.68 KB, 929x258, 1645731588751.png)

Discussion of the Russo-Ukranean war from a tactical and strategic perspective, aka how is the art of war being used in this war. What doctrinal or tactical innovations are each side making.

 No.1322

>>1321
The VDV has been doing a lot of complex maneuvers

 No.1323

>>1321
>muh russkie human vaves!
Fuck off /pol/

 No.1324

>>1323
They sent in choppers before destroying air defenses. It wasn't a human wave attack, but they did rush things.

 No.1325

>>1324
>They sent in choppers before destroying air defenses
No, 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 things
Stop reading Western MSM, they literally cannot stop shitting out of their mouths for 5 minutes. Look up Graham Phillips and other on-scene journalists that aren't NATO shills, the Russian aviation lost only a couple helicopters and even then having no casualties among the pilots so far.

 No.1362

People say the Ukraine shouldn't have given its nukes but let's be real what good are 40-50 years old ICBMs? Doesn't this stuff has shelf life? And I don't think Ukraine had the means to make more.

 No.1364

>>1362
arent american and russian (from soviet times), nukes still active?

 No.1381

Even if they don't explode it's still a toxic amount of radioactive element inside

 No.1382

>>1345
Russia has learned that armored vehicles are effectively deathtraps in the face of a single cheap drone loaded with 5lbs of RDX.

The rest of the world has learned that it's surprisingly easy to bully nuclear-armed countries with conventional tactics.

China has learned that it should never have invented the term "paper tiger," because Russia is much better prepared for a war than China and they've barely moved 30km in a week and have been humiliated on the global stage even if they eventually take Ukraine. Expect a third Chinese attempt at modernization out of barely-concealed pants-shitting fear.

 No.1384

From what i've gathered, Russia is trying to do a modern blitzkrieg by trying to wipe out forces in an area with air power and artillery, then sending infantry to clean the rest?

 No.1387

File: 1646284879443.jpg (19.32 KB, 474x251, glow.jpg)

>>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 stage

The fucking hell is this garbage? They literally advanced 30km in the first day and 50km yesterday, they're taking it slow because you can't do tactical strikes on armored and artillery units that are very close to obvious civilians, because even if you drop a missile precisely on target, the blast radius and other problems are going to cause collateral damage and risk killing noncombatants, a very important part of the entire operation. Massive numbers of Ukrainian forces are surrendering, Russia has surrounded major cities like Odessa and Kharkov and the Ukrainian junta 'leadership' fled to Lvov and are using desperate measures (like hiding behind civilian bodies) to stall for time.
>a third Chinese attempt at modernization out of barely-concealed pants-shitting fear.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, back to reddit.

TL;DR: go bullshit elsewhere cunt

 No.1388

>>1384
Stop reading MSM news from the West, airstrikes on military targets had been the initial move and since then they have not used large numbers of artillery or anything else like that, instead using primarily ground and helicopter units to storm occupied territories and drive out the neo-nazis.

 No.1389

>>1387
>your observations hurt my feelings so I'm going to call you a glowie
you love to see it

 No.1390

>>1389
Your posts are fucking garbage that make no sense and literally repeat glowie talking points repeated by garbage media like CNN, National Interest and others, you're fooling nobody.

 No.1391

>>1382
>Russia has learned that armored vehicles are effectively deathtraps in the face of a single cheap drone loaded with 5lbs of RDX.
Mostly wrong, Tanks were a main battle unit produced in large numbers and are becoming a highly specialized weapon system for breaching fortifications that are produced in low numbers, because small rocket propelled artillery with guided ammunition can do most of the same tasks for cheaper.
Drones aren't here to stay, they are just an intermediary weapons system that exists because development of anti-air defenses had an extremely narrow focus on shooting down expensive high value jets that go really fast, and the economics of these high powered systems don't add up against cheap slow drones. But that's already changing.

>The rest of the world has learned that it's surprisingly easy to bully nuclear-armed countries with conventional tactics.

Is this a sick joke ? An entire country now lies in shambles because of stupidity like this.

>China has learned that it should never have invented the term "paper tiger,"

No it's a decent linguistic creation.
>because Russia is much better prepared for a war than China and they've barely moved 30km in a week and have been humiliated on the global stage even if they eventually take Ukraine. Expect a third Chinese attempt at modernization out of barely-concealed pants-shitting fear.
I don't get the reasoning behind this, Russian forces advanced very fast, and how is any of this related to China. Can you be more specific what kind of modernization you predict China will do ?

 No.1393

>>1391
>Mostly wrong, Tanks were a main battle unit produced in large numbers and are becoming a highly specialized weapon system
Armored vehicles anon, not tanks. Drones have been absolutely wrecking transports in this conflict.
>Is this a sick joke ? An entire country now lies in shambles because of stupidity like this.
I agree, it's a shame the world had to learn this way, but now China and the US are on alert that no, nuclear weapons will not save them.
>No it's a decent linguistic creation.
Paper tiger is indeed a great linguistic creation, but it's currently coming back to bite the Chinese in the ass. If the US is a paper tiger, then Russia is a wet tissue paper tiger and China an advanced hologram of a paper tiger where nothing is actually there.
>Can you be more specific what kind of modernization you predict China will do ?
I foresee a dramatic overhaul of their troop transports and tanks, almost all of which are based on Russian designs that have proven at minimum problematic in the field. I also predict a greater focus on logistics. Russia's convoy stalled the second they left their supply rails, and while their soldiers may have been well-equipped, you need functional supply lines so that your soldiers actually have enough food and ammunition to effectively prosecute a war. This would have prevented large numbers of vehicles simply running out of gas and embarrassing videos of special forces having to loot grocery stores to eat.

 No.1394

>>1393
>Drones have been absolutely wrecking transports in this conflict.
Drones have hardly been a major part of the conflict at all and got disabled by simply taking out their airbase and using MANPADs
>If the US is a paper tiger, then Russia is a wet tissue paper tiger and China an advanced hologram of a paper tiger where nothing is actually there.
Just claiming that means nothing
>Russian designs that have proven at minimum problematic in the field
<bla bla bla st00pid russkie tanks, let me repeat more armchair NATO-propaganda about them being bad
>Russia's convoy stalled the second they left their supply rails
<source: your ass
>you need functional supply lines so that your soldiers actually have enough food and ammunition to effectively prosecute a war
No shit, doesn't mean your claims are true
>videos of special forces having to loot grocery stores to eat.
LMAO are you schizophrenic? Besides the fact that they carry enough food for days, literally the second day they gave out food to the freed citizens.

 No.1396

>>1394
I like how you're so clearly upset that your entire post amounts to "n-no! that's not what I heard on the ukraine general, it must not be true!" Good talking to you, kid.

 No.1397

>>1396
>ukraine general
>u-ur a kid
>I'm not upset u r!
Your "analysis" is fucking shallow rubbish backed by nothing and having the analytical capacity of a typical nitteroid, there is nothing to argue because you have no argument, only vague and blatantly incorrect claims that can only be based on propaganda rubbish at best, and schizo ramblings are the more likely source. Even the US DoD isn't pretending that the Russian forces are weak like you do.

 No.1398

>>1397
I think the propaganda about Russian forces having bad equipment is not propaganda for convincing you they can't win this conflict, it's about creating bad advertisement for Russian weapons systems to make them loose arms sales.

 No.1399

>>1398
I think it's both an attempt to make Russia look incapable of taking Ukraine (mostly to the liberals they hop to garner the support of) AND to make Russian weapon sales drop.

 No.1400

>>1398
It's good in general no? Just another way to attack them.
>>1399
Yup, why not both

 No.1402

>>1345
Well cities are the best defencive landscapes especially in cased were the enemy actually wants to win local support (aka civil wars)
That you cant take over large nations easily just cause you have some popular support a repeat of a boxer rebbelion and similar wars will never happen again due to nationalsim

 No.1405

I had an idea. Since the Ukrainian army has largely been defeated and it is being supplied by the west still, could Russia ignore the cities and occupy as much territory as possible? Would it work? In the short term to force a surrender? And then they could Occupy Eastern Ukraine and install a new government that is more friendly/neutral.

 No.1406

File: 1646537370181.mp4 (3.01 MB, 720x1280, 1498374494309785606_1.mp4)

>>1405
The Ukrainian army as a unified group is mostly broken, but army units still exist and have changed tactics to ambushes and other shit supported by fanatical Volksturm, the further West you go the more anti-Russian people get even in spite of their ever shittier situation even before the Operation began.
It's a Molotov-Ribbentrop (Poland) or even more a Winter War type situation - either Russia doesn't act and continues to diplomatically oppose an increasingly fanatical Ukrainian government but remains clean of open "attack" (and thus letting NATO eventually plant their seeds there) OR they have to invade and take over the entire country to prevent things from going further. A politically no-win situation in regards to Ukraine. They'll be busy as fuck covering their ass from rogue remenants of fanatical Azovites and Aidarovites supported by brainwashed locals that only hear bullshit about "evul russkies" and have forgotten the meaning of brother countries.

 No.1407

>>1406
In general with a situation where country A is invading country B and their army has near collapsed, how feasible would it be for country A to swoop in and occupy all the connections between the cities, and try and isolate them as much as possible? Just take critical infrastructure and avoid touching the urban areas or places where significant troop presence remains. Could it work to force a capitulation?

 No.1408

>>1407
>how feasible would it be for country A to swoop in and occupy all the connections between the cities, and try and isolate them as much as possible? Just take critical infrastructure and avoid touching the urban areas or places where significant troop presence remains. Could it work to force a capitulation?
Technically it could function and that is kind of the situation, but international geopolitics have an impact in an area such as Ukraine, as compared to some place in the Third World

 No.1412

One of the most fascinating things I've seen from this conflict is the effective use of cheap drones to obliterate armor. Will this spell doom for tankies everywhere, so easily defeated by dronies?

 No.1419

Some Ukrainians tested whether Javelins could defeat a tank with a slap on metal grid, and apparently grids can stop one hit.
The metal grid however is destroyed in the process. So Javelins are still effective but they have to double tap grilled tanks. The trade is pretty bad, one cheap grill for an expensive high tech missile. Although multiple missiles for one tank are still a worthwhile trade, if it's a fairly modern tank.

We just witnessed the birth of a new type of armor that uses spaced out layers, like the micro-meteorite protection layer of space stations.

Speculation time: future tanks will get retractable puff up armor layers like the feathers of a bird, and to counter that missiles will eject multiple de-grilling-projectiles ahead of the impact. Reactive armor may be upgraded to directional explosive plate ejection, that pop off a number of metal plates in a trajectory that intersects with incoming missiles.

 No.1420

File: 1646982967013-0.png (396.71 KB, 790x470, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1646982967013-1.png (329.96 KB, 700x355, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1646982967013-2.png (194.01 KB, 603x345, ClipboardImage.png)

>>1419
Interesting video, thanks for posting
>the birth of a new type of armor that uses spaced out layers
Anon, Tanks have been using spaced armor since WW2
https://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.com/2015/12/the-truth-about-spaced-armor-on-modern.html
>Reactive armor may be upgraded to directional explosive plate ejection
Again, this is already implemented in the Ukrainian Nozh ERA and all Russian/Soviet ERA after Kontakt-5.
>pop off a number of metal plates in a trajectory that intersects with incoming missiles.
Kind of like a Active Defense system you mean?

 No.1423

File: 1647007365394.jpg (26.38 KB, 299x322, Cope_cage.jpg)

>>1419
The only issue I can see there is that most of the tank kills the Ukrainians are scoring are with NLAWs, not Javelins. Javelins go around and hit the top armor, whereas NLAWs just hit the sides. Javelins are for sure more effective, but putting a metal grid on top of your tank is more of a talisman than actual defense.
also lol wikipedia

 No.1424

>>1420
Tanks 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.

>>1423
They need to put cages on the side as well.

 No.1425

>>1424
>They need to put cages on the side as well
They should just leave the tank in the garage, the strongest cage of all.

 No.1435


 No.1438

File: 1647396061123.png (Spoiler Image, 1.46 MB, 1919x816, ClipboardImage.png)

>>1419
Cool, cool but what about the droid attack on the wookies

 No.1481

File: 1647823407305-0.png (653.07 KB, 900x599, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1647823407305-1.png (2.64 MB, 2500x1679, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1647823407305-2.png (444.63 KB, 600x650, 1647376530968.png)

>Q: Why is there a lack of scopes used by Russian forces in Ukraine?
<A: They are used but in limited amounts as per Russian military doctrine, because close range fighting doesn't have the luxury of time or need for scopes unless you're a sniper or on an open field.

Russia has plenty of sights for it's guns, hell, the AK-74M comes with a side mount for optics (picatinny rails aren't the only thing people use you american), and Russian optics been manufactured in the 80s-90s and now, it's just optics are very situational, hence why soldiers only sometimes use them :)

Here's a website that has info about Russian optics
https://russianoptics.net/

>Optics. There are 2-4 1P63 collimator sights per squad. It depends on commander how they would be distributed along the men (e. g. 1st and 2nd platoons consist most of the contract operators, means they’d get 4 sights per unit, rather then 3rd platoon with recruit men, who get 2 sights per unit). There are units fully complected with 4 sights per squad. Usually, there are 25-40 sights per company. There are no helmet-mounted NVG’s in units, but many firearm-mounted scopes ( 1P51 “NSPU-3” ), 3-5 units per squad, 30-50 per company. Some of contract operators buying themselves modifications for their firearms, e. g. optics (Western too), tactical grips, rail systems and so on. Some of HQ units buying themselves a thermal-imaging devices.

>1P63 sights are given by army as a part of equipment, 1P29 scopes are rarely met due to their old design. Some contract operators buy themselves Russian 1P76, NPZ PK-1, Cobra, PK-A, etc. Оptics or Western EOTech, Aimpoint, Bushnell and etc.
https://www.reddit.com/r/joinsquad/comments/635tim/dont_russians_have_enought_money_to_buy_optics/
https://community.battlefront.com/topic/116715-cm-black-sea-%E2%80%93-beta-battle-report-russian-side/page/14/#comment-1564057

 No.1484

>TFW the PSRL-1 isn't a joke for Hollywood
>MFW Ukraine buys them
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSRL-1

 No.1485

>>1345
Have we seen any evidence of active protection systems working against NLAW/Javelin in the conflict so far? Also, what's the extent of the damage Ukrainian drones have inflicted on Russian armour?

 No.1486

>>1485
I mean there isn't a lot of comprehensive footage of tank battles. There is a video of a Bayraktar drone taking out a tank by hitting the roof, but as far as I can tell all tanks taken out in that manner are older Ukrainian and captured Donbass T-72s and T-64Bs mounting Kontakt-1 ERA that Javelin and NLAW got made to defeat. The Javelin already fails to defeat roof armor the moment a ad hoc cage gets put over the roof (as the DPR are doing) so the Ukrainians have kept to the traditional linear strikes for PTRK systems.

 No.1487

>>1486
>>1485
Dug up a good video from /chug/

 No.1488

>>1487
Interesting. Thanks anon. I remember this video, but the Ukrainian cut of it that makes it look like they took out a whole column. Didn't realise that second hit on the second tank was an ERA interception

 No.1501

File: 1647907535071-2.jpg (801.19 KB, 1280x1093, Kobra_ReticulePattern.jpg)

File: 1647907535071-3.jpg (47.23 KB, 750x494, KobraVersions.jpg)

>>1481
Kobra scopes that shay likes, used by Russia

 No.1507

Hey Anons, I don't know too much about military strategy/hardware, but It seems to me that this conflict shows that pretty much every heavy, expensive system can be destroyed by much cheaper hand-held devices (with maybe the exception of planes).
Theoretically that would mean that militaries should be mainly focusing around infantry, probably motorised, and their airforce.

Why are so many militaries then still investing in tanks and the sort? Is it because they weren't fighting comparable armies? Am I missing something?

 No.1509

>>1507
Handheld devices appear effective because they are meant to be the infantry's method of defeating mechanized troops in the absence of your own, but unlike a tank that can usually take a hit and keep going, an infantry soldier is dead the moment they reveal themselves in an ambush taking out a target, so they need to attack en masse or at isolated targets to have a chance of victory - i.e. hit-and-run. The problem is that against any force of significant size, you can harass troops using handhelds but you aren't going to be able to hold the ground, as Ukraine demonstrates. It's the same as Afghanistan - they did damage, sure, but the overall superiority lent itself to the Soviets and they rapidly made gains on Mujahed territories. Moreover the most effective systems against tanks and aircraft used are massive bulky things like the NLAW, that needs a soldier to set up before firing, making the entire point of a portable ATGM pointless unless you're having a dug-in fight, and unless you have air support or mechanized troops of your own, the result is going to be poor. I'm loath to dig through 600+ files but there's a good number of videos of Donetsk troops and voenkors in former Ukrainian trenches that had numerous Javelins and other handheld missiles, but failed to use them fast enough to counter them being stormed by an armored group.

 No.1510

>>1507
The failure of tanks in this conflict is not a failure of the tanks themselves, it's a failure of the Russian military to provide infantry support to tanks.
Watch any of the dozens of videos of Russian tanks getting taken out by cheapo NLAWs, and you'll notice that not ONCE is there an infantry escort to actually take care of guys with anti-tank weaponry. It's such a colossal fuckup on the part of Russia that it's a wonder they haven't thought to fix it after the first dozen tanks lost.

 No.1511

>>1510
>The tanks don't have infantry support
They do. In the heat of battle tank support can get separated from the infantry, and infantry or not, an ambush is still going to have an impact.

>cheapo NLAWs

They're expensive as fuck actually

 No.1512

>>1511
Anon I don't know if you've noticed but $30,000 is cheap as fuck for something that can take out a tank. A Javelin costs 7x as much and would only do the job marginally better.

 No.1513

>>1512
>30,000 is cheap as fuck for something that can take out a tank
except they don't, not reliably against anything that isn't an old tank from before their era. The Javelin already got partially negated on older tanks by simply putting a cage over the roof and modern tanks have ERA and APS.
Moreover most of those ATGMs don't get a chance to be used. There's even a video of a bunch of ATGM toting fags that got walloped by tank shells as they tried to use them. The tanks taken out mostly remain repairable and many for not too expensive prices, not to mention that they're not even reusable tube launchers.

 No.1515

>>1513
>except they don't, not reliably against anything that isn't an old tank from before their era
And yet they keep taking out T-90s? What exactly is your definition of "old tank?"

 No.1516

>>1515
>Taking out T-90s
There have been no T-90s in Ukraine, proven by further the fact that in Syria TOW2 missiles (comparable to Javelin and NLAW) failed to take them out, yet suddenly start taking them out?

 No.1518

File: 1648000642935-0.webm (1.15 MB, 608x1080, 1646055254686.webm)

File: 1648000642935-1.jpg (175.63 KB, 960x1280, 1646344093745.jpg)

File: 1648000642935-2.jpg (425.51 KB, 1431x540, 1646080497569.jpg)

>>1516
>There have been no T-90s in Ukraine
lol
lmao

 No.1519

>>1518
Those pics are T-72 upgraded variant, you can tell because the front light mounts aren't embedded like a T-90s. Give me some sauce on those pics

 No.1520

>>1519
Dude what the fuck are you talking about, the lights aren't "embedded" in the T-90 either, they're in separate housings. Look at the burning webm and tell me with a straight face that it isn't a T-90.

 No.1521

>>1520
Hmmm ok, might be. I still need some sauce on that vid/pics cuz that's suspicious as fuck.

 No.1522

>>1521
And I mean suspicious because it's a lone tank (no other tech around it at all) and because it has no visible penetration or battle damage, not to mention the lack of identifying numbers or a Z or V symbol on it.

 No.1523

>>1521
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html

Here's a list documenting confirmed Russian losses during this conflict, with photos for each. At least 17 T-90s have been lost, along with the dozens of T-72 variants.
I think at this point the Syrian T-90 surviving a TOW missile in 2016 was a fluke. It hit the turret in an area without ERA and the gunner fled the vehicle. Range was about 700m and Shtora failed to intercept it.

I'm pretty sure the reason they're having a rough time is because even in 2015 Ukraine was reporting that the Shtora system is ineffective if you fire at it from 900m or closer, and a lot of these shots are MUCH closer than that.

 No.1524

>>1523
>Here's a list documenting confirmed Russian losses
To clarify, this lists both Russian and Ukrainian losses, and the 17 T-90s lost is only the ones that we have photo/video evidence of. Numbers on both sides are going to be much higher, especially on the Ukrainian side as Russians don't seem to be as keen on filming everything.

 No.1525

>>1524
>>1523
Almost 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 ineffective

In 2015 the T-90 was nowhere in the area. It's plausible (though still unlikely to me) that the Russian forces deployed T-90s in the current conflict, but before that Russia had no vehicles in the conflict, simply because they were trying to play by the diplomatic rules.
Also Shtora got used in Syria and did just fine if it was turned on. The Shtora you speak of hadn't been turned on and the tank itself had its engine off (you can see the tank being deactivated) likely to conserve fuel and reduce heat signature. The penetration on that T-90 didn't do shit and the Gunner jumped out as a precaution but later returned and drove off. Moreover a different T-90 got hit by several ATGMs from various angles and survived just fine.

 No.1562

>Yet another /k/ope thread derailed by facts
/uhg/ is on some supercopium levels of shit
https://archived.moe/k/thread/52513503

 No.1565

File: 1648512881126-0.jpg (143.77 KB, 1280x720, Ukraine-25 NLAWnch.jpg)

File: 1648512881126-3.png (669.5 KB, 1500x1500, ClipboardImage.png)


 No.1567

File: 1648529822670.jpg (13.81 KB, 233x233, 1626275172832.jpg)

>>1565
I'm almost mad that the guy didn't follow the directions on the box and fired it inside the safety range. If he had waited for the tank to pass he could have turned it to shrapnel, but instead he jumped the gun.

Like fuckin cmon, there have literally been more than a hundred tanks destroyed with these things over the past month, he HAD to know that they don't work if you're within 20m.

 No.1568

>>1567
It did detonate though, and it look like the 3rd floor so from his position it had been roughly 20m, it's not like you can precisely measure the distance

 No.1569

File: 1648591406963.png (247.33 KB, 610x418, ClipboardImage.png)

>>1568
>>1567
Confirmed NLAW, and if it is that small damage we see with the fire it could be indicating that the missile did its job and has hit the tank and caused some damage but no explosion.
The NLAW has a firing mode where the missile passes over the target and detonates above it with a small shape charge down directionaly towards the vehicle. Its not always an instantaneous explosion where everything dies. It is also possible it hit but did not detonate, or that it was a glancing blow. But seeing that there is fire coming out of what appears to be a shape charge impact point it is possible the rocket did its job semi-successfully and there could be damage inside the turret, or it could just be neutralized by ERA.

 No.1570

>>1569
if the rocket had an effect, why didn't the tank speed up, or react in some other way, it just continued rolling down the street as if they didn't notice what had happened.

 No.1571

>>1570
Because the tank isn't a living being that can feel and react, the crew reacts. It is impossible for them to not notice an explosion, they drove past the attack and let the hidden infantry take out in-building positions. No tank can raise its barrel that high from so short a distance and getting out to use the machine gun is suicidal.

 No.1572

>>1571
>getting out to use the machine gun is suicidal.
It's 2022 and they can't remotely control the machine gun. This is a big design flaw in MBTs.

They should only build BMPT Terminators.

 No.1573

>>1572
>It's 2022 and they can't remotely control the machine gun. This is a big design flaw in MBTs
It's a fucking tank from 1989 of the DPR forces that they captured and jury-rigged, modern MBTs like the T-90 DO have remote control machine guns.

 No.1582

File: 1649027396309.mp4 (16.41 MB, 640x480, convoy.mp4)

Debunking an idiotic point by "muh stoopid ruskie" people
>"Russia has a huge problem with its logistics, so bad that they're using open comms so anyone can just tune in and listen"
Using open comms doesn't matter for small scale stuff. The big stuff is encrypted. This happens with personal radios, where encryptions is vastly lacking as a design choice, not as a inexperience. In the end, Russia could be using these open comms as misinformation. And obviously it seems to have worked if you think the Russian military is dumb enough to not use encryption. Obviously every soldier uses an encrypted radio, but sometimes using open comms doesn't matter.
As for logistics it's always been that way since the Roman's were writing home begging for carts, it'll rarely be perfect, especially in mechanized warfare. Russia historically has specialized in wars of attrition. They don't go for "shock and awe", they go at a pace that won't tire them out, and mix it up using heavy precision strikes.

 No.1593

File: 1649178836078.png (1.34 MB, 990x990, ClipboardImage.png)

This conflict demonstrates that just having a steady supply of NATO/CIA trainers and arms supplies are not a guarantee of victory. Chechen Rosgvardiya holding a trophy ukrainian UAR-10 rifle, based on the Armalite AR-10
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbroyar_Z-10

 No.1623


 No.1624

>>1623
Some of this is blatantly obvious "you can get a lucky hit, older tanks are taken out by modern AT systems etc.) but some of this is extrapolation. The part about the NLAW being unable to arm in that distance of the video is POSSIBLE but saying that it'd be an assured kill is nonsense. Even if it had actually detonated and penetrated the angle and part hit is literally the outer hull, at bet it'd put a hole in the back of the turret and through the hull side, missing any crucial parts… maybe damaging the tracks.
Also the part about ERA needing to be hit head on is fucking nonsense, it's the most basic thing in their design.

Moreover the list of tanks taken out is inaccurate, the "19 T90s" is fucking nonsense I've already discussed, most of these "T-90s" are souped up T-72B3s or T-64BVMs or the Ukrainian T-72AMTs that have sheet-metal add ons. Of the T-90s supposedly taken on in Ukraine only 1 of them looks actually taken out, the others just appear abandoned, not destroyed.

 No.1690

>>1364
There is an entire industry dedicated to maintaining/upgrading the arsenal. They have been ship of Theseus'd since the cold war

 No.1692

>>1690
American Nukes outside the Trident II is massively outdated and runs on the old big floppy disks.

 No.1694

damn nearly 2 months now
i remember thinking russia would just pwn ukraine,
shit’s actually miraculous

 No.1697

>>1694
I mean in terms of military unity they did, but breaking apart military unity =/= capturing the country.

 No.1698

>>1697
4d chess

 No.1711

Moon of Alabama post from March 25 on the military situation: https://archive.ph/QIzBV

 No.1712

File: 1650571006308-0.png (679.33 KB, 800x588, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1650571006308-1.png (208.14 KB, 750x400, ClipboardImage.png)

>>1362
>People say the Ukraine shouldn't have given its nukes but let's be real what good are 40-50 years old ICBMs? Doesn't this stuff has shelf life? And I don't think Ukraine had the means to make more.
Uhhh they could make new cruise missiles. It doesn't have to be an ICBM because Russia is right there dude. I dunno what size warheads they had but they could even fire them out of artillery. Hello you could just try and sneak it in and detonate it. These are the kind of warheads that are attached to a MIRV ICBM. I'm sure they could easily mount one of these warheads on a Neptune or something.

 No.1798

File: 1651974784906-0.png (310.45 KB, 976x549, ClipboardImage.png)

The idea that the Neptun could reach Snake Island is not impossible - 270km from shore, for a 280km range missile -though at the limits of its range but a subsonic cruise missile not being taken out by a cruiser that mounts a massive amount of Air Defense is ridiculous.
https://archive.ph/DqNrP
https://naked-science.ru/community/442025/

The relatively intact status of the ship also indicates this: The Neptun is subsonic, but still fast and a massive missile that upon theoretical impact would cause much more damage.
Ergo the ship is going to be raised and if not for a storm, could have reached harbor.
https://archive.ph/oFh1o

The current theory is that of diversion/sabotage.
https://archive.ph/64wDe

 No.1815

so we all can agree this was an utter embarrassment right? hope china's taking notes, cause god, what a disaster

 No.1825

>>1815
Yeah, Ukraine's forces got smashed for all their bluster.

 No.1827

>>1405
how has the Ukrainian army largely been defeated?
isnt russia having troubles making any advancements or am I being feed false information by western news sources?
if so can someone give me reliable non-western news sources?

 No.1828

>>1345
Command chains matters
Intel matters

 No.1830

>>1405
Russia's winning so hard, they should take over empty fields instead of actual towns and cities because uhhh because STOP BEING A NATO SHILL OK?

 No.1831

>>1830
>Russia literally took over dozens of towns and cities
>the entire Ukrainian army is splintered or holed up
<Hurr muh empty fieldz
You're a retard, Zeethe more.

 No.1832

>>1827
>how has the Ukrainian army largely been defeated?
Most of its tech it taken out, no large army groups remain having being splintered into minor brigades and divisions that are consistently being driven out of the cities.
>isnt russia having troubles making any advancements or am I being feed false information by western news sources
Russia 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 sources
Southfront. Use Tor. Also see the Ukraine thread on /edu/ for sources.

 No.1834

>>1815
Not sure what China can learn to be honest. A war for Taiwan (if it ever happens, China has made the redline VERY explicit) would be over the sea, on the sea and under the sea to neutralize the US Navy before it ever gets to the island itself.

At most, the PLAGF needs to really drill urban warfare in since Taiwan's western-half is near totally urbanized.

 No.1835

>>1834
>neutralize the US Navy
wouldnt that escalate into WW3 ? and consequently into full blown nuclear war?

 No.1836

>>1835
Well yes, it probably would. Although I find that thought process weird, China invading Taiwan is a crisis for American hegemony, but not American existence. Would the US deploy nukes for that? I don't think the US would go nuclear if a CBG was sunk but who knows?

My thought process is simply that since the US Navy is the biggest obstacle to an invasion, China would want to get it out of the way first, otherwise any forces landing on Taiwan are at severe risk of being cutoff.

 No.1934

>>1836
most of the worlds(>90%) hightech chip production is in taiwan which includes hightech chips for the american military industrial complex
so an attack on taiwan and its chip production facilities is endangering supply lines of american hightech weapons and hightech consumer goods like iphones
so until samsung,intel and tsmc finished construction of their production facilities in america until like 2025/26 american military and public industry is extremely vulnerable to an attack on taiwan
but even those facilities wont be able to produce enough chips for the whole american market also the most modern generations of 3nm and 2nm chips wont be produced outside of taiwan for the forseeable future

 No.1935

Rcently Ukrainian propaganda has ben overjoyed to claim they destroyed a T-90M, a top-of-the-line modernization of the T-90. It's an excellent tank, but a single tank is not invulnerable. The claim the Ukrops made is that they destroyed it using a Carl Gustav anti-tank rocket, but its actually not really true. Red Effect did a short video on it using footage of the destruction and proving that Rusia destroyed the tank after it became immobile (The Ukrainians probably damaged the drive train or tracks) and the retreating Russian forces couldn't recover the tank and had another tank destroy it, using a close range attack to the rear, directly hitting the ammunition rack.
Red Effect isn't always the most accurate but this video is definitely on point.

 No.1936

>>1834
China should heavily invest into making the US army blind and deaf. That boat in the Black sea was sunk thanks to US intel.

 No.1945

>>1936
Agreed, the USA prides itself on its EW and Air Force if nothing else. China needs a way to counter both strongly in the air and on the ground. If this can be done, the US Army will be sitting ducks, they've never had to operate without total air superiority.

At the very least, the PLA needs a way to bleed the USAF/USN like how the PAVN bled the USAF/USN over Vietnam.

 No.1947

>>1945
>EW
what's that ?
electronic warfare ?

 No.1948

>>1947
Yes, it is no lie or exaggeration that NATO's technological advantage gives it a massive edge in EW as can be seen in Ukraine. China is catching up rapidly thanks to its own technological advances, but it may still be years before it reaches parity.

 No.1951

>>1948
>NATO's technological advantage gives it a massive edge in EW as can be seen in Ukraine
What? where? Russian missiles are taking out Ukrainian targets constantly the Ukrainians literally operate unguided shitty M777s and just shell randomly, and Russian EW is enough to take out a lot of drones and eliminate the advantage they had given.

 No.1958

>>1951
Russian missiles are bombarding the Ukrainians every day, on the other hand, the Russian Air Force is active primarily East of the Dnieper, and hasn't been seen much in the West outside of the early weeks when a few were shot down. If they were I'm sure Kiev and Lvov would be getting pounded even harder.

Admittedly I don't have any hard proof, I just guessed that NATO EW from across the border is almost certainly helping the Ukrainian air defenses West of the Dnieper. The Ukrainians may not even need to turn on their radar.

 No.1960

>>1958
The Russians aren't operating there because its too risky given the dense civilian population and the fact that artillery does the same as any bomb. An airstrike is primarily for more priority missions.
> I'm sure Kiev and Lvov would be getting pounded even harder.
heh

 No.1980

File: 1653417960119.png (984.37 KB, 925x694, ClipboardImage.png)

The U.S. is shipping 200 Vietnam-era M113 armored personnel carriers to Ukraine as part of a larger $800 million aid package. The tracked-vehicle will help transport Ukrainian troops from the rear areas of the battlefield to the frontlines – mobility for infantry that is badly needed.
>https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/04/m113-armored-personnel-carriers-are-ready-to-fight-in-ukraine/

Tax write off of about $1.500.000 each (Ukraine will pay 3% interest per month on those) and of course AMC or GE will get contracts to replace them with Bradleys, at a bargain cost of $3.500.000 each.
Guess who owns millions in stocks in those companies?

 No.1995

>>1980
>US is reduced to supplying METAL BOXES
I imagine the Russian "Orks" capturing and turning them into Looted Metal Boxes.

 No.1996

>>1995
gondor sisters…

 No.2004

>>1995
I mean the modernizations of M113s are dcent (certainly better than base Bradleys) but they're pretty pathetic compared to any Soviet BMP or BTR contemporary.

 No.2047

>>1827
Somehow I feel like, say, for the 6th of July, some people here will keep saying the Ukrainian army has been largely defeated and all is according to the plan. It's really the cope war of our times all around.

 No.2061

>>2047
>cope map
LMAO fuck off.

 No.2062

>>2061
So what are you saying exactly? That this map isn't representative of the reality? Is Russia army at Kiev's doors or something? Are you sure that this is the map that is "cope" and not a "you" problem?

 No.2080

>>2062
No it is not representative of reality
>Is Russia army at Kiev's doors or something
Did I say that? No, so don't put words in my mouth
>Are you sure that this is the map that is "cope" and not a "you" problem?
Yes

 No.2083

>>2080
Why is it not representative of reality?

 No.2091

>>2083
at least a couple of those "ukrainian counter-offensives and territory regains" demonstrated didn't happen and the large areas that are supposedly not under Russian control in between "le convoy meme" is just false.

 No.2166

File: 1655859402952.jpg (227.42 KB, 1920x1080, backdrop-1920.jpg)

So far Ukraine has claimed three air-to-air victories and Russia is claiming zero. Is there any footage of air-to-air combat in this war?

 No.2168

>>2166
Ive been watching footage of this invasion since the start and havent seen one video of air-to-air combat. Ukrainian claims about air victories should always be taken with a grain of salt since their government officials were claiming the Ghost Of Kiev was real for a while

 No.2170

Thoughts on the "Kiev Offensive" that happened during the early part of the invasion? Russian troops (mainly VDV airborne forces) entered Northern Ukraine and were advancing towards Kiev, but they eventually withdrew back to Russia and Belarus after about a month of fighting.
Pro-Ukrainian commentators say it was failed attempt by Russia to seize Kiev and that the VDV got decimated in the process. Pro-Russian commentators on the other hand say it was actually just a feint to pull Ukrainian forces far away from the Donbass, not an attempt to take Kiev

Video is footage of Russian VDV entering Northern Ukraine on the very first day of the invasion

 No.2171

>>2170
People 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 mobilization
Why would you not try it?

 No.2173

>>2171
Yes. It seems like a lot of people do not understand this.

 No.2176

File: 1655923227771-0.png (86.68 KB, 249x286, KNEEL.png)

File: 1655923227771-1.jpg (51.71 KB, 578x800, lol.jpg)

>>2170
I kneel…

 No.2177

>>2176
Hate to say it but Marichka is kind of cute

 No.2179

>>2177
Mmm not really

>>2170
VDV did pretty fine for an isolated unit, obviously they took losses, its a war, but for the scale of the operation their losses had been fairly small, especially considering they only had light armor and armament compared to regular units. That said they took several key areas almost immediately, including an airfield, and acted as area denial for Ukraine's troops. It is very unlikely they intended to take Kiev, based on the methods they are going by (very limited strikes, ignoring smaller units to take out larger open concentrations of troops, etc.) It's glaringly obvious that if Russia had intended to steamroll Kiev, they could have, but the only way to do this is at the cost of either immense Russian casualties in urban combat, or immense civilian casualties through artillery barrage repressing the military units hiding in Kiev's apartment complexes. Neither is particularly favorable in the long-run.

 No.2180

>>2176
ofc azoids would like a mid muscle girl like patty

 No.2181

>>2180
Being a muscle girl is an instant +3 to +5 so it's difficult for one to be mid tbqh

 No.2182

>>2181
to clarify, she's a mid amongst muscular women. Jessica Buettner, Vladislava Galagan or even Monica Granda are better but are only known to Crumbian freaks like myself

 No.2183

>>2180
isnt she a midget too lmao

 No.2185

>>2180
Imagine not liking musclegirls, what a faggot

 No.2186

>>2185
refer to >>2182

 No.2187

>>2179
>It is very unlikely they intended to take Kiev, based on the methods they are going by
Have you considered that they did intend to take Kiev, but they didn't expect such heavy resistance from the Ukrainians? Almost everyone thought Russia would roll over Ukraine in a few days, it wouldn't be surprising if the Russian leadership thought it would like Crimea 2014 where they would just waltz in with little resistance. If they were actually expecting a tough fight they might've sent more heavily armed regular Ground Force units to Northern Ukraine


Unique IPs: 49

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]