Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar

Status
Not open for further replies.
youtu.be

How Many Tanks Does Russia Have Left Now? With Exclusive Satellite Imagery!

Exclusive! Grab the NordVPN deal ➼ https://nordvpn.com/covert. Try it risk-free now with a 30-day money-back guarantee!Check Out Project Owl on Discordhttps:...
youtu.be youtu.be

V interesting. He is literally buying satellite images and counting the tanks in Russia storage places. And comparing the dates/updates.
 
Last edited:
SideWinder said:
youtu.be

How Many Tanks Does Russia Have Left Now? With Exclusive Satellite Imagery!

Exclusive! Grab the NordVPN deal ➼ https://nordvpn.com/covert. Try it risk-free now with a 30-day money-back guarantee!Check Out Project Owl on Discordhttps:...
youtu.be youtu.be

V interesting. He is literally buying satellite images and counting the tanks in Russia storage places. And comparing the dates/updates.
Click to expand...

I've been watching a few people doing this kind of stuff including for their artillery sites - I don't entirely agree with some of the takes though - while the video is representative of the situation they miss a few factors like how many T-80s were reactivated in recent years - the numbers active at the start of this war and the long standing official appraisal of Russia's active tank stocks are a bit off. While probably not a major factor there are a few hundred T-90s of various types garaged up from both active and reserves as well not included in those numbers.

It is hard to know how many of those tanks can be put back into active service - there are a lot of reports of maintained reserves being raided for parts for various reasons and an unknown how capable they are of scaling up and sustaining facilities to repair and produce new replacement parts required. One of the things which made me question whether or not this invasion was really about to happen in the days leading up to it was the lack of pintle mount, etc. equipment on around half of the tanks and other armoured vehicles seen moving to forward staging areas - I think Russia probably sent at least 1 in 3 vehicles into combat in the opening phase of the war with only the main gun and basic equipment - lacking things like mounted anti-tank weapons, machineguns, smoke launchers, advanced optics/sensors, etc. never mind how many actually had things like reactive armour and so on.
 
Mrwong said:
US buying $300 million worth of Nplate drugs
Click to expand...
Getting prepped for the possible. It’s going to be the end game. Ukraine aren’t going to stop until all of Ukraine is back under control and Russia aren’t able to stop it. Russia will need to increase the mobilisation but even the “300k” are not well equipped or able so it would be more cannon fodder. The alternative is to start rolling out the bigger weapons. These are Putin’s options if surrender is not chosen.
 
delta0 said:
Getting prepped for the possible. It’s going to be the end game. Ukraine aren’t going to stop until all of Ukraine is back under control and Russia aren’t able to stop it. Russia will need to increase the mobilisation but even the “300k” are not well equipped or able so it would be more cannon fodder. The alternative is to start rolling out the bigger weapons. These are Putin’s options if surrender is not chosen.
Click to expand...

Time is not on Russia's side. They need to plug the current situation but it will take time to get a well equipped, trained, level of mobilisation while they are having to throw their manpower in piece meal with what equipment they have ready to go. This makes a winter pause a not great situation if it happens.

On another note saw a comment related to a Tweet posted recently in this thread - if Putin does fall "The power vacuum in Russia is going to make Game of Thrones look like a UN debate." - with the various factions like established elites in Russia, Kadyrovs, etc. all at each other's throats and able to muster well armed supporters in numbers.

Related to that https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1577780691626037248
 
Last edited:
Rroff said:
Time is not on Russia's side. They need to plug the current situation but it will take time to get a well equipped, trained, level of mobilisation while they are having to throw their manpower in piece meal with what equipment they have ready to go. This makes a winter pause a not great situation if it happens.

On another note saw a comment related to a Tweet posted recently in this thread - if Putin does fall "The power vacuum in Russia is going to make Game of Thrones look like a UN debate." - with the various factions like established elites in Russia, Kadyrovs, etc. all at each other's throats and able to muster well armed supporters in numbers.

Related to that https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1577780691626037248
Click to expand...
The situation after Putin steps down will be a tense one. Will they be able to hold Russia together, will they be able to negotiate peace with the west or will they go all in with a hardline stance.
 
Interesting video on the impact on the UK of a "limited" nuclear engagement:


Not sure any nuclear engagement of that kind would result in a "limited" scenario as once even a small number start flying it is likely in reality there won't be any strategic pauses to see how things unfold.
 
"Limited" implies you can launch a nuke and there will be no response. Such a concept is a joke and does not exist

You have NATO and the Americans saying they will enter Ukraine and completely eradicate the Russian army of they the Russian use a nuke in Ukraine, which is not a NATO country. So if the response to using a Nuke on another sovereign non NATO country is that strong, how strong would the response be if it was a nuke used on a NATO country? Rhetorical question, there is nothing limited about it
 
Last edited:
Rroff said:
Interesting video on the impact on the UK of a "limited" nuclear engagement:


Not sure any nuclear engagement of that kind would result in a "limited" scenario as once even a small number start flying it is likely in reality there won't be any strategic pauses to see how things unfold.
Click to expand...
Once nukes get going and defence systems are overwhelmed there’s no escape for anyone. If you don’t go in the initial blast, or the wide spread radiation you will with the nuclear winter. It’s MAD for the entire world. I think South America and maybe southern parts of Africa would be the only places that civilisation will continue. The rest of the world would be gone.
 
Africa really is the best place on Earth when you consider doomsday scenarios. It's more or less immune to the polar ice melting and sea levels rising, it's far away from any regions that can experience major war and nuclear radiation and it's the region that is most resistant to a nuclear winter and global cooling from any cause including huge volcanoes explosions and it's also mostly free of earthquakes and most of it is at no risk from tsunamis
 
Grim5 said:
Africa really is the best place on Earth when you consider doomsday scenarios. It's more or less immune to the polar ice melting and sea levels rising, it's far away from any regions that can experience major war and nuclear radiation and it's the region that is most resistant to a nuclear winter and global cooling from any cause including huge volcanoes explosions and it's also mostly free of earthquakes and most of it is at no risk from tsunamis
Click to expand...

Even in a fairly limited nuclear exchange the collapse of modern infrastructure would precipitate a vast global food crisis and take a long time for production to reach parity with need - that would be felt keenly in Africa.

The more extreme nuclear winter scenarios in reality are exceedingly unlikely even with a full exchange - they can only really happen with the massive use of older multi-megaton atom bombs used in an unrealistic fashion. Modern day scenarios where a lot of the weapons are kt range used in airburst configuration doesn't produce anything like the level of firestorms and stratospheric injection, etc.
 
Last edited:
Rroff said:
Even in a fairly limited nuclear exchange the collapse of modern infrastructure would precipitate a vast global food crisis and take a long time for production to reach parity with need - that would be felt keenly in Africa.

The more extreme nuclear winter scenarios in reality are exceedingly unlikely even with a full exchange - they can only really happen with the massive use of older multi-megaton atom bombs used in an unrealistic fashion. Modern day scenarios where a lot of the weapons are kt range used in airburst configuration doesn't produce anything like the level of firestorms and stratospheric injection, etc.
Click to expand...
Plus we are assuming the defence systems are overwhelmed to even get to that stage.
 
I feel like air defence systems are overrated, do you guys remember when civilian landed a Cessna next to the Kremlin, didn't get shot down by a SAM or a fighter jet.

I feel like stopping a nuclear first strike is nearly impossible
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom