Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,717
Funds are with Elsa now
Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar
- Thread starter areksnumbr1sxylady
- Start date
- Status
Funds are with Elsa now
In a few respects, maybe. I can't help thinking though that militarily the UK being and acting independantly is better. We do tend to have the same viewpoint in military matters but have different requirements being a largely coastal nation.
I remember a YT videos a few years back where a girl was exploring some village and all the locals were warning her off - the supposed big Russian military base was just a shell with little more than empty concrete structures and long abandoned transport aircraft and no actual security other than a couple of caretakers at the main entrance.
That said in more recent years there has been some attempts to address that - as per one of the examples I posted just before this all kicked off where the base had gone from basically a junk yard to whole buildings torn down and/or new ones erected and new aircraft, etc.
Russia has raided the mothballed stock and rotated older equipment out from other parts of the country for this invasion, other than elements it isn't reflective of their best - but IMO they simply can't afford to throw their best at it without sabotaging the ability to continue their mission in Syria, home defence especially the borders with China and interests in the Arctic and all the other ongoing stuff their military has.
We've barely seen T-72B3s or newer variants of the T-90, a lot of the helis and other aircraft are old stock in some cases lacking upgrades from the past 40 years even.
It is true though that maintenance is lacking, even amongst the regular units involved, training is obviously lacking where even experienced commanders are still making WW2 era mistakes, etc. but I'd be wary of writing off Russia's military to the extent you are doing.
As much as anything turning to Chechens and Syrians, etc. is because they are more remote to the conflict - less likely to have qualms about doing more brutal stuff than Russians who might have family links to Ukraine, etc.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 11 Feb 2011
- Posts
- 2,136
China has been flying into Taiwan's airspace for a while now. They've been expanding in the South China Sea by building islands for years. What did Trump do about that? And Russia was fighting a proxy war in Ukraine all the way through Trump's presidency. What did he do to stop Russia? As for why didn't Russia attack back then, maybe they weren't ready, we've also just had over 2 years of a pandemic, hardly the best time to be going to war. They were also committed in Syria. What ever the reason why Putin chose now, he badly miscalculated both the Ukrainian resistance and the response from the west in terms of a united diplomatic front, sanctions, military support and companies pulling the plug on Russia.
I honestly don't understand how people can put their faith in that idiot. He is thick as ****, a narcissistic sociopath who got played by every head of state he went up against. Biden might be an old man who should be putting his feet up in retirement and he might not be as sharp as he used to be but as an intellect he blows Trump out of the water. Trump own advisors said he was thick as ****, are they all lying? Barr just this weekend said he had no mental control. His ego is that fragile he created the Big Lie because he couldn't handle losing an election. Is that someone you want controlling the worlds most powerful military in a situation that could end up as WW3? Its like you want us all to die
They are all pro Russian regions, no one cares. Actually, it was mostly Obama that set the trend in the US, as he couldn't give a toss. And whilst yeah, Trump did nothing, at least he didn't say that Ukraine was a core interest of Moscow, and they shouldn't be in NATO being so close to scary Russia. You want to assign blame? There's a far, far greater argument against the saintly, Nobel Peace Prize winner for the state of the world than Trump right now, with his naive foreign policy and 'red line' bluster. And as if Trump would have pulled out of NATO by the way. If it comes to it, the yanks control NATO forces, and with the alliance near dominating Europe, it would be weaker to sever themselves from it given their geographic isolation. It was nothing more than political grandstanding to win votes.
And what could he do about China building islands? Send in the navy and blockade all the dredgers in their own backyard, raising tensions in one of the busiest trade regions in the world? Would be a pretty stupid thing to do... If he's as dumb as you claim, I'm wondering why he didn't do just that? In sensible terms that were clearly recognised, it is a vital sea corridor to the Middle East the US needs, and it's more important than China building big sandcastles and bullying out foreign fisherman. Yes, they are breaking some international maritime laws etc, but really, like they care as whose gonna stop them anyway? The US is probably scared of China's military capabilities in anti-ship ballistics and supersonic missiles, and rightly so too in that scenario.
But at least Trump did have his boot on their neck through other means. Trade tariffs, reviving relations with Taiwan, 'China Virus'. Unlike Biden, who is nervous as cats when it comes to China, for better or worse, Trump took a real hardline that was needed. And every country with a bee in their bonnet probably flies into another sovereign's airspace from time to time. Russia will send the odd one here, but never dozens of warplanes in a show of force. So as I've said, that didn't happen on Trump's watch because he's too busy smack talking China, or talking of 'totally destroying' North Korea in front of the UN or wherever it was. I mean, does that sound like someone you want to trifle with, threatening the obliteration of another country who calls their leader 'rocket man'. It's hilariously undiplomatic, the guy just didn't give a ****.
Didn't actually happen, of course, but despite that, you still think he'd put us on course for WW3. Why? Rallying a mob of peasants is hardly in the same league as starting nuclear armageddon. Same as all his belligerent finger pointing and combative attitude on the world stage. Whether you like it or not, it projects strength, which is kinda mandatory for the #1 military of the world. Instead, you would prefer sleepy Joe, who on a good day with all his marbles is nothing more than the wet lettuce we can't have. The US media might not report on it, but the Australian press eat him alive on a daily basis. I presume that's still the case, although I've not seen any for a while now, as his constant incoherent bumbling speeches and inability to exhibit any kind of leadership became too irritating to watch, given how it is perceived internationally.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2014
- Posts
- 7,977
- Location
- The Cronx
Fair point and I think we have a lot to offer militarily. However the sands shift and I think a lot of the assumptions of 2016 are null and void in a global context. Just goes to show fate can whip success (potential - you know my stance on that) out of your hands in weeks. Short term politics needs to end.
In my opinion the best system is of course benign dictatorship (with me at the helm)
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2014
- Posts
- 7,977
- Location
- The Cronx
@Smokey Deza
Too long to quote.
I think if Trump were in charge now we would have no idea which way he would go and there would be economic collapse on our side as well as theirs. Showing strength or not in retrospect means nothing if the world sees you as an unpredictable wildcard (I’m being kind). Stability in this situation under Trump would have been impossible (IMO) with all the grown ups in the world.
Too long to quote.
I think if Trump were in charge now we would have no idea which way he would go and there would be economic collapse on our side as well as theirs. Showing strength or not in retrospect means nothing if the world sees you as an unpredictable wildcard (I’m being kind). Stability in this situation under Trump would have been impossible (IMO) with all the grown ups in the world.
News from past 30mins:
*Ukraine Will Request More Military Weaponry From the US – New York Times.
*Biden Will Announce $1 Bln in Fresh Military Aid to Ukraine on Wednesday – WSJ.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/0...united-states-to-send-more-military-equipment
https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-...military-aid-to-ukraine-wednesday-11647384130
'The $1.01 billion is expected to include more of the same kinds of military equipment the U.S. says the Ukrainians need the most: antiarmor and antiair systems, including portable air defenses such as Javelins and Stingers. The money would come from the roughly $13.6 billion allotted for Ukraine in the omnibus budget bill Mr. Biden signed Tuesday.'
*Ukraine Will Request More Military Weaponry From the US – New York Times.
*Biden Will Announce $1 Bln in Fresh Military Aid to Ukraine on Wednesday – WSJ.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/0...united-states-to-send-more-military-equipment
https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-...military-aid-to-ukraine-wednesday-11647384130
'The $1.01 billion is expected to include more of the same kinds of military equipment the U.S. says the Ukrainians need the most: antiarmor and antiair systems, including portable air defenses such as Javelins and Stingers. The money would come from the roughly $13.6 billion allotted for Ukraine in the omnibus budget bill Mr. Biden signed Tuesday.'
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 4,698
- Location
- Wiltshire
Except ive seen footage of falluja where they take fire from somewhere so target that building, and theres storys of extreme close quarter combat with jihadis even fighting in hand to hand combat..... wheres Russia are killing OAPS on there way home from the shops and what appears to be completely random bombing of residential blocks, TV stations and hospitals.
Not saying America never killed civilians but they actually had rules of engagement.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 32,250
- Location
- Leafy Cheshire
Desperate stuff.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 22,512
- Location
- ST4
That reminds me, I must get a new meat grinder.
I wonder if this desperation is going to result in some very heavy or chemical bombs used. They’re not doing well and I’m glad they’re getting their arses kicked but we all know that they’ve got bombs that could wipe the whole city out if they get desperate.
There are numerous factors that all came together to result in Russia's current poor tank situation, but here's a few:
(1) Russia spent most of the time since the fall of the USSR bankrupt, as a result of taking on all of the USSR's debt in exchange for being internationally recognised as it's successor state (thus inheriting UN seat/etc). This meant that until the last 10 years they couldn't afford to maintain the tanks they had let alone develop new ones properly. The first post-USSR tank they have unveiled is the T-14 Armata and they currently only have two prototypes. All of their other "new" tanks are 30+ year old Soviet designs with features from the 90s/00s bolted on.
(2) The USSR spent the better part of it's last decade going bankrupt, this means that in that time tank development stalled and was downgraded for budget reasons, the knock on effect being the tank programs Russia inherited were already stalled/slowing compared to western development. In example, they had three tank families, the T-64 (high end tried and tested design that was never exported), the T-72 (cheaper/weaker alternative to the T-64 that was designed for export and to boost the USSRs tank numbers) and the T-80 (based on the T-64, advanced tank designed to replace the T-64 as the USSR's top tank).
However, due to the aforementioned imminent bankruptcy of the USSR they decided to end development of the T-64/T-80 and focus entirely on the T-72 as that was the cheapest option. This is the program Russia inherited and why they had no choice but to continue the development of just the T-72 for a long time, this resulted in the T-72BU, which Russia renamed the T-90 in the early nineties in order to try and hide the fact their best tank of the 90s/00s was actually a design from the 70's and the USSRs third best tank.
(3) Because Ukraine was now a separate country and that was where the USSR's best tanks were designed/built, this meant that Russia no longer had access to the T-64 factory so couldn't get parts effectively, this meant they had no choice but to sell/scrap most of their T-64 tanks despite them being superior to the stock of T-72 they inherited (many of which they are now using in Ukraine).
In addition the diesel engine T-80UD tanks were all produced in Ukraine so Russia can no longer maintain/replace the engines in these tanks (many of which have been cannibalised so their improved turrets can be placed on older T-80s). This is a problem as the standard version of the T-80 which they use was designed for defence not offence, and so while it's repurposed helicopter engine is great for operating at down to -40 while defending Russia against a NATO invasion it's terrible for actually invading anywhere due to dismal fuel consumption.
----
So basically, Russia only really has at it's disposal:
- Old Soviet T-72 tanks that have been poorly maintained.
- Old Soviet T-72 tanks with newer bits bolted on that have also been poorly maintained.
- Old Soviet T-80 tanks that have been poorly maintained and are really not designed for invading anywhere but they have to be used in order to beef up the numbers.
- Some updated T-72 tanks built in the 90s/00s with a T-90 label taped on (which already had their flaws exposed by Syrian rebels with improvised weapons).
Last edited:
It's a fraction of what it's costing Russia, estimates are 20-25 billion euros per day and that doesnt factor in the damage to their economy. It's an idiotic waste of life and money as all wars are.
- Status