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

Status
Not open for further replies.
ianh said:
@Rroff - It seems clear what your saying, the Russians haven't committed 100% of their best troops/equipment but only a certain percentage and then filled the rest of the invasion force out with low quality troops/equipment - a claim which doesn't sound that outlandish.

The rest of the conversation is just another typical Dowie hole of exactly what this "certain percentage" may be (and that figure needs to be precise to 3 decimal places :D)
Click to expand...

Yet that isn't what I've asked for... nor did any claims get made about "100%", you're just making things up to argue against.
 
The fact is Ukraine now has access to the latest and most technologically advanced weapons (thanks to the West) while Russia does not - and never can now due to sanctions (unless China supplies them with semiconductors and other stuff they can't make themselves). It's not going to get better for Russia as time goes on so if they were going to push hard they'd best get on with it.
 
dowie said:
I think you're now focused on equipment and that's dubious too but the comment was about the cream of the armed forces being held back etc.. They have very few T-14 tanks, they have serious issues with corruption, issues with logistics.
Click to expand...
The problem is the cream of the Russian armed forces is unusable in the current conflict, SSBN and HK submarine’s, long range strategic bombers and strategic rocket forces are about as much use as a solar powered Vibrator in the current situation.
 
woppy101 said:
The problem is the cream of the Russian armed forces is unusable in the current conflict, SSBN and HK submarine’s, long range strategic bombers and strategic rocket forces are about as much use as a solar powered Vibrator in the current situation.
Click to expand...
I’d assume we’re talking in the context of what units feasibly could be used else it’s just an irrelevant claim rather than a bad one.

Though long range strategic bombers and submarines have been used here. Cruise missiles fired at southern Ukraine have come from subs and the Russian airforce has been a bit shy about firing sorties over Ukrainian airspace (save for some air support to ground forces in the east), they have however been using strategic bombers to fire missiles from say over the Caspian Sea.
 
dowie said:
Exactly. The reality is that Russian formations are undermanned, they have to fill them with conscripts etc.. claims that things would have worked out better if they'd used the cream of their armed forces etc.. are just pure fantasy, they did commit large portions of the cream of their armed forces and this is the result, in addition to that they've had to rely on conscripts to make up numbers, they're pulling troops out of Syria and the Congo, they're sending in Wagner group mercenaries.

In the occupied areas of Ukraine, they're so desperate that they're basically rounding up men of fighting age for forced conscription. They moved units from the far east just leaving a bare minimum there to protect their borders etc... They're really overstretched right now.
Click to expand...

Abstractly that doesn't prove anything - Russia would far rather send Ukrainian forced conscripts to the meat grinder before their own troops even if they had an over abundance of troops for instance and it would be equally true if they were trying to avoid depleting their regular army that they might send in Wagner group mercenaries, etc. where they could in the first instance.

They've started to dip more into their regular forces now, moving more regular forces away from South Ossetia to use in Ukraine for instance but that doesn't have much baring on my original comment.
 
Rroff said:
In abstract that makes sense fine - they can be struggling for manpower while holding back their best troops if they are trying to avoid using too many of their best troops.
Click to expand...

Sounds political.

It's suggested that non-professional troops are used (a) that the more die the more that putin/politicians are blamed and not the armed forces for their own war or whims, and, (b) the army maintains strength. Another way to look at it is that Putin wants to sacrifice conscripts to stir up the population, leaving the army out of it means he doesn't get a backlash.. except intentionally killing off the generals.
 
dowie said:
Yet that isn't what I've asked for... nor did any claims get made about "100%", you're just making things up to argue against.
Click to expand...

You've done it again - taken ianh's post as if it was the most dumb **** possible interpretation of what he actually said...
 
That BBC footage of the unfortunate pensioner encountering the Russians, when they fire at 0:23 you can clearly see they are spooked by the second person on the scene.

They doubled back, who knows why, maybe they heard him talking, but it clearly wasn't premeditated.

A timely reminder of how fragile life is and how pointless war is.
 
Rroff said:
You've done it again - taken ianh's post as if it was the most dumb **** possible interpretation of what he actually said...
Click to expand...

He didn't really have much to say tbh... if you want to pretend that simply asking you to substantiate your own claim and explain the basis for it is some ridiculous request for some % to 3 d.p. then that's your own dumb **** interpretation. You simply dodged the questions repeatedly several posts back because what you're saying is nonsense.

Rroff said:
Abstractly that doesn't prove anything - Russia would far rather send Ukrainian forced conscripts to the meat grinder before their own troops even if they had an over abundance of troops for instance and it would be equally true if they were trying to avoid depleting their regular army that they might send in Wagner group mercenaries, etc. where they could in the first instance.

They've started to dip more into their regular forces now, moving more regular forces away from South Ossetia to use in Ukraine for instance but that doesn't have much baring on my original comment.
Click to expand...

They clearly don't have an overabundance of troops though and they clearly have sent in large portions of their best units to only get decimated, even then they've had to make up numbers with conscripts, some of whom were basically forced into signing contracts.

Russian units aren't kept at 100% strength, they need new contract soldiers, conscripts etc.. to make up the numbers, they did commit substantial portions of the "cream" of their armed forces to the invasion and they got decimated. It was a huge build-up, notions of holding back are just bunk.
 
NickK said:
Sounds political.

It's suggested that non-professional troops are used (a) that the more die the more that putin/politicians are blamed and not the armed forces for their own war or whims, and, (b) the army maintains strength. Another way to look at it is that Putin wants to sacrifice conscripts to stir up the population, leaving the army out of it means he doesn't get a backlash.. except intentionally killing off the generals.
Click to expand...

Playing with fire there a bit, but if they bank on having a mafia/cartel like hold over the population and what they think, then having a bunch of young lads, etc. portrayed as dying because of the evil West would be one way to stir up popular support for the war.

dowie said:
They clearly don't have an overabundance of troops though and they clearly have sent in large portions of their best units to only get decimated, even then they've had to make up numbers with conscripts, some of whom were basically forced into signing contracts.

Russian units aren't kept at 100% strength, they need new contract soldiers, conscripts etc.. to make up the numbers, they did commit substantial portions of the "cream" of their armed forces to the invasion and they got decimated. It was a huge build-up, notions of holding back are just bunk.
Click to expand...

An overabundance of troops is neither here nor there - again you are doggedly going for narrow absolutes in something I was using to illustrate a broader point.

Really can't be bothered with the rest as ultimately after a complex breaking down of it becomes insignificant to my original comment.
 
Last edited:
Sorry but that is even more ludicrous - Putin actually wants to sacrifice conscripts to stir up support, you guys can't seriously believe stuff like that?

There was a scandal as a result of the use of conscripts in the initial invasion if anything that loses support in Russia as they weren't supposed to be used on operations! He's literally stated publicly that he won't use conscripts and it seems quite plausible that he's been blindsided by some of the local commanders who have basically forced conscripts to sign contracts, in no way is lots of conscripts dying a good thing for Putin.
 
Last edited:
Concrete said:
That BBC footage of the unfortunate pensioner encountering the Russians, when they fire at 0:23 you can clearly see they are spooked by the second person on the scene.

They doubled back, who knows why, maybe they heard him talking, but it clearly wasn't premeditated.

A timely reminder of how fragile life is and how pointless war is.
Click to expand...

The longer video on CNN, etc. makes it look a bit different - it is almost like they either suddenly remembered they had orders which meant they should shoot them or received orders to kill them. In the longer video it doesn't look like they were spooked - they literally start wandering off, pause for a moment then quite casually stroll back and shoot them.
 
Intriguing airborne command post and QRA? Typhoons out of Romania heading over Turkey:

ARfgKTI.png


Possibly just heading down to Cyprus.
 
Last edited:
Anyway, back on topic… a bit more detail on the river crossing that was foiled twice, this general points out it perhaps wasn’t just a BTG that was lost but it signifies a main effort and perhaps significant units lost across a whole brigade:


Won’t listen the whole thread but it’s worth a quick read


Loss of bridge laying equipment (twice) is a big blow too (unless you believe they’re holding back loads of that).
 
dowie said:
Anyway, back on topic… a bit more detail on the river crossing that was foiled twice, this general points out it perhaps wasn’t just a BTG that was lost but this sort of thing signifies a main effort and perhaps significant units lost across a brigade:


Won’t listen the whole thread but it’s worth a quick read


Loss of bridge laying equipment (twice) is a big blow too (unless you believe they’re holding back loads of that).
Click to expand...

Interesting post but please can we stop with the bickering, that little swipe at the end lol, no need.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom