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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I suspect they're being trained in another NATO/EU country as opposed to on the march on the front lines.

I guess they could be posting old footage maybe but I'm not so sure they'd bother.
 
Roar87 said:
?

en.wikipedia.org

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

British parliamentary approval for the invasion of Iraq - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...

I assumed Carlson meant a public vote. But listening to the clip again, he doesn't even say 'nobody was asked to vote for it.' He simply calls it a hot war (false) and says 'it hasn't been authorised by Congress' (also false, because all the action taken in support of Ukraine has indeed been voted on and approved by Congress). He's lying through his teeth. Even a toddler could spot the falsehoods at this stage.

You said:

Sure, but what Tucker said in that video is correct. No one voted on being in a conflict with Russia.
Click to expand...

Yet Carlson didn't say anything about a vote.

Roar87 said:
Because you said so? lmao.

I think any reasonable person would consider a country to be involved in a conflict if they were providing one side with lethal arms, monetary aid, providing active intelligence, and had special forces soldiers in that country supporting them. If that isn't being involved in a conflict then most of the British Army also wasn't involved in invading Iraq, it was just the guys who pulled the trigger apparently
Click to expand...

We're not in a conflict with Russia. We're supporting another nation in their conflict with Russia. There is no state of war between Russia and the US/UK.

Iraq was different: we attacked and invaded. We're not doing that with Russia. We don't even have any troops or vehicles engaging with their forces. At last count, the US had ~18 military personnel in Ukraine, and they were not fighting.
 
Last edited:
ubersonic said:
I would wager the UK have put limitations on what they can/can't do with them, as it would look super bad for the UK if they jumped into their hot new tanks, drove to the front to wreck havoc and got immediately fragged like the Syrian army did with their first T-90.

It has to be remembered that while the Challenger 2 has a scary reputation it is entirely derived from the reputations of the tanks that preceded it plus the hype around it's armour. We've all heard the "never lost to enemy fire" line but hype aside the C2 itself is effectively untested in battle as it has spent it's whole combat life thus far popping Soviet tanks from the 50s with zero modernisation and bouncing RPGs from the 60s.

Although in fairness that does cover quite a bit of what it will be going up against in in Ukraine :D



It's not often talked about but this is something that's been ongoing for decades albeit not as openly/large scale as the last 12 months.

A good friend of mine is a Russian who left in the early 2000s due to Putin becoming president, he worked in the Russian defence industry but now works in the UK defence industry. The crazy thing is he knows dozens of other people who worked in the Soviet/Russia defence sector who are now living/working in the UK, USA, etc and that's just from that industry, their brain drain over the past twenty years has been immense which somewhat explains the performance of some of their newer hardware (or lack thereof).
Click to expand...

The NATO MBTs are all basically unkillable in the sense that NATO doctrine has infantry properly supporting the tanks, and the tanks are never the first line of attack—they go in one the air force had made complete mincemeat of the area.

This is in contrast to Russia who seem to just throw the tanks in and expect them to do everything.
 
Last edited:
Tephnos said:
The NATO MBTs are all basically unkillable in the sense that NATO doctrine has infantry properly supporting the tanks, and the tanks are never the first line of attack—they go in one the air force had made complete mincemeat of the area.

This is in contrast to Russia who seem to just throw the tanks in and expect them to do everything.
Click to expand...

One of the bigger killers of armour in this war has been artillery walked in by drone corrected fire (Soviet era tank designs tend to have poor reverse speeds which make them even more sitting ducks there) and suicide drones. Something Western tanks will also be somewhat vulnerable to.
 
Last edited:
Tephnos said:
The NATO MBTs are all basically unkillable in the sense that NATO doctrine has infantry properly supporting the tanks, and the tanks are never the first line of attack—they go in one the air force had made complete mincemeat of the area.

This is in contrast to Russia who seem to just throw the tanks in and expect them to do everything.
Click to expand...

Russia's current doctrine is smash enemy position with artillery then send tanks and meat waves. It's very similar to ww1

Russia did try the nato doctrine at first - they sent their airforce and then columns of tanks and ifvs, but the problem is the airforce didn't do much of anything so the Russian ground troops walked into a trap
 
Last edited:
Grim5 said:
Russia's current doctrine is smash enemy position with artillery then send tanks and meat waves. It's very similar to ww1

Russia did try the nato doctrine at first - they sent their airforce and then columns of tanks and ifvs, but the problem is the airforce didn't do much of anything so the Russian ground troops walked into a trap
Click to expand...

Doesn't really help when you try a move hundreds of miles behind enemy lines with no ground support.
 
Tephnos said:
The NATO MBTs are all basically unkillable in the sense that NATO doctrine has infantry properly supporting the tanks, and the tanks are never the first line of attack—they go in one the air force had made complete mincemeat of the area.

This is in contrast to Russia who seem to just throw the tanks in and expect them to do everything.
Click to expand...
It will be interesting to see what Ukraine do with them though, since they won't have air superiority.
 
Terminal_Boy said:
Neither do the Russians, so Ukrainian armour advancing supported by mobile AAA (Gephard, Shilka or just some blokes riding in pickup trucks with MANPAD) should be fine.
Click to expand...

Yeah as long as both sides can prevent free use of the air it isn't a huge factor here, though ideally medium range mobile stuff - MANPADS are of limited use against low flying fast jets or high flying bombers with guided/precision munitions.
 
Has anyone seen the video of a 'wooden' t-80 that had been destroyed?

They videoed the tanks glacis that had lost the sides so you could see the profile....and wood...good old 2X4 timber seemed to be sandwiched between the steel plates!

Also a video in the state of some of thier other tanks, literally rusting hulks inside with some spruced up equipment shoved in.
 
Last edited:
alchal said:
Has anyone seen the video of a 'wooden' t-80 that had been destroyed?

They videoed the tanks glacis that had lost the sides so you could see the profile....and wood...good old 2X4 timber seemed to be sandwiched between the steel plates!

Also a video in the state of some of thier other tanks, literally rusting hulks inside with some spruced up equipment shoved in.
Click to expand...

Not seen it but composite armour often has a layer which looks like wood sandwiched in there.

A lot of their tanks the steel seems to be pretty poor though - some even seem to have a layer of possibly aluminium instead of steel.
 
Last edited:
The funny thing is that the more Russia relies on Iran the easier it is to slip in something nasty through a mountain of agents present at all levels in the Iranian government.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom