User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 8:04:43 PM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What everyone who supports Russia doesn't understand is this: This should have been an easy victory for Russia, it isn't and they have paid an incredible toll for almost nothing to show for it. The "2nd" best military in the world, is failing to co-ordinate and co-operate on what is "their" own turf, this should have been a cake walk for them. They have lost major naval assets against a navy that basically doesn't exist anymore. All their major modern weapons systems are failing not only against Western technology, but against obsolete versions of their own older equipment. Basically their new shit isn't even as good as their old shit and they now have even less of it. They have almost completely wiped out their prior professional military experience. At this rate, NCOs and Officers will be nothing more than titles handed out to in experienced men/boys, leading other men/boys who know equally little. They can produced 10000 tanks, planes, helicopters, ships, a year and none of it matters if the men driving the equipment don't know how to use it effectively. Who in this thread supports Russia? I, for one, am all for helping out militarily as long as we aren't eroding our capabilities. But I sure as fuck don't want to foot the bill for their gov. institutions, salaries, and fucked up com bloc pensions. Why is that our obligation? Why is it perceived that our not helping Ukraine is a betrayal, per Z-man himself? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 8:13:24 PM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Because people are criticizing OP for his thread title, which matches the CNBC headline. It’s acceptable and truth when it confirms to the posters’ prejudices but when it doesn’t it’s propaganda. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 8:30:25 PM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ukraine has spent the past two years grossly misrepresenting their position, and conducting controlled IO targeted at not only Russia, but their own benefactors. The west followed suit and has tried to keep a lid on all the negative effects and consequences towards ourselves as well. That only works for so long in the modern world. Once people find out the truth, which they always will, the blowback will be a thousand times worse than if they were honest the entire time. This is what we are seeing now, and Ukraine and the west are about to become their own TLO in a future OIE/MDO war college lesson plan with how badly they fucked this up. Ive been saying this from the start, and pretty much everything I stated from the week before the invasion has become reality. The Uke brigade doesn't get it, but their efforts may be well intentioned but have had more impact for Russia than Ukraine by far. The narrative doesn't exist anymore. Quote HistoryQuoted: Ukraine has spent the past two years grossly misrepresenting their position, and conducting controlled IO targeted at not only Russia, but their own benefactors. The west followed suit and has tried to keep a lid on all the negative effects and consequences towards ourselves as well. That only works for so long in the modern world. Once people find out the truth, which they always will, the blowback will be a thousand times worse than if they were honest the entire time. This is what we are seeing now, and Ukraine and the west are about to become their own TLO in a future OIE/MDO war college lesson plan with how badly they fucked this up. Ive been saying this from the start, and pretty much everything I stated from the week before the invasion has become reality. The Uke brigade doesn't get it, but their efforts may be well intentioned but have had more impact for Russia than Ukraine by far. The narrative doesn't exist anymore. Quoted: Dude, that’s out there. WTF are you talking about? How do you equate that statement to this; Quoted: For all the Pro-Russia accounts that said it would never happen. F-16’s are in Ukraine!!! Ukraine F16 First Look You are a living, breathing, example of the problem. A cheerleader with no functional understanding other than you want your team to win.  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 8:30:47 PM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: WTF are you talking about? Their new drone factories are already producing, as are their artillery plants. https://isis-online.org/isis-reports/detail/visible-progress-at-russias-shahed-drone-production-site The rest of the problems you describe are the exact same ones faced by Ukraine, with much fewer resources to match. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Russia can start building factories tomorrow they won't be delivering equipment for a couple years at best. There's a factor, that renders thousands of pieces of equipment little more than target practice. Russia can't send wave after wave of untrained boys into Ukraine and win. The backbone of any modern military are the NCOs E-4 through E-7s, not the CGOs, not the FGOs. Your military runs on enlisted experience or it doesn't run, period. You can't build experience off of dead conscripts and Russian has depleted its experienced NCO corps by something like 66% and it has almost no experience in its CGOs and FGOs, leading to a huge amount of its Colonels and Lt. Colonels getting killed in combat because they are picking up the slack. It doesn't if they can produce 1000 new fighters and helicopters in a year. They don't have the time to train the pilots, this isn't WWII, and you just start things up and go. They are bleeding experience by the day and they can't replace it. 2 years, that's how long it takes to push pilots through training on modern aircraft. WTF are you talking about? Their new drone factories are already producing, as are their artillery plants. https://isis-online.org/isis-reports/detail/visible-progress-at-russias-shahed-drone-production-site The rest of the problems you describe are the exact same ones faced by Ukraine, with much fewer resources to match. There is an ocean of difference between a drone or artillery shell vs a T-90 or Mi-28. You're not going to build a new factory a couple months to replace the 60 tanks a month they are losing, and are those T-90s going to really turn the tide? Russia lost brand new KA-52s at Hostomel Airport to handheld SA-7s...a 1970s technology. So, awesome those factories are going to turn out equipment that is going to immediately be destroyed within days of combat, taking their crews with them. Sure, Ukraine is going to lose a lot of people as well, but Russia has more enemies and more territory to cover than Ukraine does. Ukraine only has one enemy to concentrate on, a largely facing one direction. Guess who Russia has to worry about?, all of NATO. Russia has to maintain a military all over the country, they are barely even handling Ukraine. The simple question you've danced around this entire thread is this: Why can't Russia just take all of Ukraine outright...right now? No nukes, but everything else...100% Why can't they nut up and just invade all over again? Let's get down to brass tacks, you're trying to cheer lead for Russia's hopes of winning a war of attrition, that they should be able given their vaulted military capabilities, immediately. Just pull back, regroup, fire up the T-14 Armatas, BMPTs, Sukhois, Migs, Tu-95s and Tu-160s and, thunder run and carpet bomb Ukraine like we would? Why cant they do that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 8:42:09 PM EST
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There is an ocean of difference between a drone or artillery shell vs a T-90 or Mi-28. You're not going to build a new factory a couple months to replace the 60 tanks a month they are losing, and are those T-90s going to really turn the tide? Russia lost brand new KA-52s at Hostomel Airport to handheld SA-7s...a 1970s technology. So, awesome those factories are going to turn out equipment that is going to immediately be destroyed within days of combat, taking their crews with them. Sure, Ukraine is going to lose a lot of people as well, but Russia has more enemies and more territory to cover than Ukraine does. Ukraine only has one enemy to concentrate on, a largely facing one direction. Guess who Russia has to worry about?, all of NATO. Russia has to maintain a military all over the country, they are barely even handling Ukraine. The simple question you've danced around this entire thread is this: Why can't Russia just take all of Ukraine outright...right now? No nukes, but everything else...100% Why can't they nut up and just invade all over again? He just said they haven't been a threat since the the 90s or prior. Doesn't that answer your question? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 8:43:09 PM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There is an ocean of difference between a drone or artillery shell vs a T-90 or Mi-28. You're not going to build a new factory a couple months to replace the 60 tanks a month they are losing, and are those T-90s going to really turn the tide? Russia lost brand new KA-50s at Hostomel Airport to handheld SA-7s...a 1970s technology. So, awesome those factories are going to turn out equipment that is going to immediately be destroyed within days of combat, taking their crews with them. Sure, Ukraine is going to lose a lot of people as well, but Russia has more enemies and more territory to cover than Ukraine does. Ukraine only has one enemy to concentrate on, a largely facing one direction. Guess who Russia has to worry about?, all of NATO. Russia has to maintain a military all over the country, they are barely even handling Ukraine. The simple question you've danced around this entire thread is this: Why can't Russia just take all of Ukraine outright...right now? No nukes, but everything else...100% Why can't they nut up and just invade all over again? I haven't danced around anything at all. That question is not relevant unless you are simply trying to equate Russia and Ukraine in fantasy football terms. But, that's also not how any of this works. Russian tank production is still something like 20x the entire west combined but that's actually not even as relevant as you think. Western support and weapons have absolutely held them at bay. Russia stopped being a tactical level powerhouse in the 80's and admitted this many times. They knew they had no chance at tactical parity with the west. In fact, it's the very basis for their RNGW doctrine shifts towards asymmetric warfare, A2AD, EW/IW. Those facets may not have turned the tide on the armored battlefield, but this is far from a real maneuver war. Those RNGW domains have kept Russia in the game for the long haul as they are purposely designed to exploit capability and resource gaps within the west, which is where we are at now. They set all the conditions for the fight they want, how they want it, and we fell for it. It doesn't matter how much Russia loses if it's still committed to fight. What does matter is if all that combined support led to a stalemate, and Russia commits to a wartime footing and the west tapers off, then it's pretty much all over. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 8:49:15 PM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The simple question you've danced around this entire thread is this: Why can't Russia just take all of Ukraine outright...right now? No nukes, but everything else...100% Why can't they nut up and just invade all over again? Let's get down to brass tacks, you're trying to cheer lead for Russia's hopes of winning a war of attrition, that they should be able given their vaulted military capabilities, immediately. Just pull back, regroup, fire up the T-14 Armatas, BMPTs, Sukhois, Migs, Tu-95s and Tu-160s and, thunder run and carpet bomb Ukraine like we would? Why cant they do that? They probably could but your asking a question only 1 man on earth can answer: Putin. Who knows what that psycho is thinking. What is also true is that Russia can afford to bleed Ukraine dry, all while bleeding the US Treasury and our stockpile of weapons dry. Which they are doing rather effectively, by the way. Just yesterday it was announced that the US is buying Patriot missiles from Japan that are made domestically in Japan. There have been countless articles over the past 2 years about how low our reserve equipment, artillery, and defense systems have become as a result of Ukraine's issues. In a reversal, Japan to send Patriot missiles to US |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 8:50:53 PM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He just said they haven't been a threat since the the 90s or prior. Doesn't that answer your question? No, that doesn't answer the question, nor even close. My question is, why Russia was not capable of successfully invading or capturing Ukraine or why given their vaulted and extensive capabilities, that they are not able to pull back regroup, use greater strategic assets and attempt another invasion? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 8:52:42 PM EST
[#9]
Quoted: Let's get down to brass tacks, you're trying to cheer lead for Russia's hopes of winning a war of attrition, that they should be able given their vaulted military capabilities, immediately. Just pull back, regroup, fire up the T-14 Armatas, BMPTs, Sukhois, Migs, Tu-95s and Tu-160s and, thunder run and carpet bomb Ukraine like we would? Why cant they do that? I'm not for Russia in any way. I'm for America, then after that I support Ukraine in this fight. This statement here illustrates exactly why this fight is not going to be won by Ukraine. Hubris from people thinking they understand the situation based on western and US military perspective. That's why Ukraine bolo'ed their offensive, and that's why we allowed ourselves to be sucked into a fight designed by Russia on their terms, which is now completely working against not only Ukraine, but us as well. Because people who think they are smart drool over turret pop videos on youtube and all of a sudden think they have a grasp on everything....when the reality is they have no fucking idea what's really happening. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 8:55:14 PM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They probably could but your asking a question only 1 man on earth can answer: Putin. Who knows what that psycho is thinking. What is also true is that Russia can afford to bleed Ukraine dry, all while bleeding the US Treasury and our stockpile of weapons dry. Which they are doing rather effectively, by the way. Just yesterday it was announced that the US is buying Patriot missiles from Japan that are made domestically in Japan. There have been countless articles over the past 2 years about how low our reserve equipment, artillery, and defense systems have become as a result of Ukraine's issues. In a reversal, Japan to send Patriot missiles to US That's not good for Ukraine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 8:57:53 PM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I haven't danced around anything at all. That question is not relevant unless you are simply trying to equate Russia and Ukraine in fantasy football terms. But, that's also not how any of this works. Russian tank production is still something like 20x the entire west combined but that's actually not even as relevant as you think. Western support and weapons have absolutely held them at bay. Russia stopped being a tactical level powerhouse in the 80's and admitted this many times. They knew they had no chance at tactical parity with the west. In fact, it's the very basis for their RNGW doctrine shifts towards asymmetric warfare, A2AD, EW/IW. Those facets may not have turned the tide on the armored battlefield, but this is far from a real maneuver war. Those RNGW domains have kept Russia in the game for the long haul as they are purposely designed to exploit capability and resource gaps within the west, which is where we are at now. They set all the conditions for the fight they want, how they want it, and we fell for it. It doesn't matter how much Russia loses if it's still committed to fight. What does matter is if all that combined support led to a stalemate, and Russia commits to a wartime footing and the west tapers off, then it's pretty much all over. I'm not for Russia in any way. I'm for America, then after that I support Ukraine in this fight. This statement here illustrates exactly why this fight is not going to be won by Ukraine. Hubris from people thinking they understand the situation based on western and US military perspective. That's why Ukraine bolo'ed their offensive, and that's why we allowed ourselves to be sucked into a fight designed by Russia on their terms, which is now completely working against not only Ukraine, but us as well. Because people who think they are smart drool over turret pop videos on youtube and all of a sudden think they have a grasp on everything....when the reality is they have no fucking idea what's really happening. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: There is an ocean of difference between a drone or artillery shell vs a T-90 or Mi-28. You're not going to build a new factory a couple months to replace the 60 tanks a month they are losing, and are those T-90s going to really turn the tide? Russia lost brand new KA-50s at Hostomel Airport to handheld SA-7s...a 1970s technology. So, awesome those factories are going to turn out equipment that is going to immediately be destroyed within days of combat, taking their crews with them. Sure, Ukraine is going to lose a lot of people as well, but Russia has more enemies and more territory to cover than Ukraine does. Ukraine only has one enemy to concentrate on, a largely facing one direction. Guess who Russia has to worry about?, all of NATO. Russia has to maintain a military all over the country, they are barely even handling Ukraine. The simple question you've danced around this entire thread is this: Why can't Russia just take all of Ukraine outright...right now? No nukes, but everything else...100% Why can't they nut up and just invade all over again? I haven't danced around anything at all. That question is not relevant unless you are simply trying to equate Russia and Ukraine in fantasy football terms. But, that's also not how any of this works. Russian tank production is still something like 20x the entire west combined but that's actually not even as relevant as you think. Western support and weapons have absolutely held them at bay. Russia stopped being a tactical level powerhouse in the 80's and admitted this many times. They knew they had no chance at tactical parity with the west. In fact, it's the very basis for their RNGW doctrine shifts towards asymmetric warfare, A2AD, EW/IW. Those facets may not have turned the tide on the armored battlefield, but this is far from a real maneuver war. Those RNGW domains have kept Russia in the game for the long haul as they are purposely designed to exploit capability and resource gaps within the west, which is where we are at now. They set all the conditions for the fight they want, how they want it, and we fell for it. It doesn't matter how much Russia loses if it's still committed to fight. What does matter is if all that combined support led to a stalemate, and Russia commits to a wartime footing and the west tapers off, then it's pretty much all over. Quoted: Let's get down to brass tacks, you're trying to cheer lead for Russia's hopes of winning a war of attrition, that they should be able given their vaulted military capabilities, immediately. Just pull back, regroup, fire up the T-14 Armatas, BMPTs, Sukhois, Migs, Tu-95s and Tu-160s and, thunder run and carpet bomb Ukraine like we would? Why cant they do that? I'm not for Russia in any way. I'm for America, then after that I support Ukraine in this fight. This statement here illustrates exactly why this fight is not going to be won by Ukraine. Hubris from people thinking they understand the situation based on western and US military perspective. That's why Ukraine bolo'ed their offensive, and that's why we allowed ourselves to be sucked into a fight designed by Russia on their terms, which is now completely working against not only Ukraine, but us as well. Because people who think they are smart drool over turret pop videos on youtube and all of a sudden think they have a grasp on everything....when the reality is they have no fucking idea what's really happening. Where are you getting the statstic of 20X Western capabilities combined? They have one active tank manufacturing plant...one, UralVagonZavod that produces 20 tanks per month, they are losing 60 per month. They are generating tanks from depots, not new production. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 8:58:45 PM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My question is, why Russia was not capable of successfully invading or capturing Ukraine or why given their vaulted and extensive capabilities, that they are not able to pull back regroup, use greater strategic assets and attempt another invasion? You really don't get it at all. They are using strategic assets, successfully. What they aren't going to do is pivot this fight on the tactical level assets they know full well are not a match for western equipment, as in another ground invasion. I realize you cannot detach from the western line of thinking that equates the unwillingness to knuckle up and go tank on tank to losing. You should probably get over that since that's how wars are going to be fought from now on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 8:59:32 PM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Where have you confirmed we made it to 500+ a year? I have only seen plans to do so and nothing stating it had successfully occurred. I've seen lots of recent MIC plans and projections that have not panned out that are regularly cited as already being complete. Quote HistoryQuoted: Where have you confirmed we made it to 500+ a year? I have only seen plans to do so and nothing stating it had successfully occurred. I've seen lots of recent MIC plans and projections that have not panned out that are regularly cited as already being complete. You might have looked at it in more detail with more recent figures, but this is where I saw that number. “We’re at a 500 missile per year production rate ramped up to 550 by the end of the year by the end of 2023. And then we’re investing in facilitation to increase that production as well.” Quoted: NASAMs also is in tiny numbers and takes a long time to produce systems. There's really no telling how many are even left. Do you mean the radars/launchers, or the missiles, because hopefully the missiles are the only component being expended, and those are just adapted AAMs that should be in reasonable supply. There is probably a lot of early AMRAAMs that are at the end of their shelf life or are too obsolete to be of much use in a serious fight against China. Quoted: The F16's will help with rear area missile defense, but pilots will be the bottleneck there. Yeah, but hopefully they won't be losing pilots quickly. They will undoubtedly lose some Vipers, but if they are mostly flying defensive counter air, it will be over friendly territory, so the ones that manage to eject won't get captured. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 9:03:34 PM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Who in this thread supports Russia? I, for one, am all for helping out militarily as long as we aren't eroding our capabilities. But I sure as fuck don't want to foot the bill for their gov. institutions, salaries, and fucked up com bloc pensions. Why is that our obligation? Why is it perceived that our not helping Ukraine is a betrayal, per Z-man himself? There's no choice. The ports of Kherson and Odesa are blocked, so they couldn't ship their grain out or ship goods in. Poland wouldn't let them ship it by rail either. So farmers don't have money for seed in the spring. About a third of the country is displaced, lost their homes and businesses. The unemployment rate is officially 35% but it's probably closer to 50%. Their govt is running a monthly deficit of $5 billion. https://www.npr.org/2022/11/01/1132167234/russia-ukraine-war-unemployment-displaced-economy But keep in mind that their economy was only $200 billion before the war and while the US is providing the bulk of military aid, the EU is providing the bulk of the financial aid: 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 9:04:53 PM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Where are you getting the statstic of 20X Western capabilities combined? They have one active tank manufacturing plant...one, UralVagonZavod that produces 20 tanks per month, they are losing 60 per month. They are generating tanks from depots, not new production. Well as hard as it's going to be for you to believe, you are wrong. The 20x was an offhand generalization, but 10x is more realistic. China is helping them fix that right now. https://en.defence-ua.com/industries/how_many_tanks_a_month_russian_uralvagonzavod_can_produce_really-5921.html How many tanks do you think we make a month? 12. We have the ability to make 12, not how many we actually make. Germany can make 2. How many does Ukraine make? Once again, this war isn't going to be won by tanks. Tanks have barely made a difference outside of being long range targets. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 9:07:10 PM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Do you mean the radars/launchers, or the missiles, because hopefully the missiles are the only component being expended, and those are just adapted AAMs that should be in reasonable supply. There is probably a lot of early AMRAAMs that are at the end of their shelf life or are too obsolete to be of much use in a serious fight against China. Quote HistoryQuoted: Do you mean the radars/launchers, or the missiles, because hopefully the missiles are the only component being expended, and those are just adapted AAMs that should be in reasonable supply. There is probably a lot of early AMRAAMs that are at the end of their shelf life or are too obsolete to be of much use in a serious fight against China. The systems themselves. There were only a handful given starting almost two years ago and they take two years to produce. Quoted: Yeah, but hopefully they won't be losing pilots quickly. They will undoubtedly lose some Vipers, but if they are mostly flying defensive counter air, it will be over friendly territory, so the ones that manage to eject won't get captured. Well, they have 8 pilots to start so losing a few may be a big deal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 9:07:21 PM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I suspect Russia will continue its missile and drone campaigns, so a shortage of air defense will have a tremendous impact but specifically how that would pan out I can’t say as I’ve mainly focused more on whether aid continues. If it does then any speculation on my part would be moot and as our air defense ARF member pointed out in the anir defense thread, evaluating air defense capabilities for RUS/Ukraine using news is ineffective. IMO, the Russians haven't been effectively targeting their cruise missile strikes. Whether that's due to a lack of Russian capability or just skilled dispersion tactics by Ukraine, the result is the same. A shortage of Patriot interceptors would likely result in a higher cost on Ukrainian civilians than their military. I'm more concerned with Su-34s and the like tossing smartbombs at the front line, but Ukraine shut that shit down the other day with a single ambush downing three of them. As long as the Ukrainians have some missiles, Russia will lose jets when they try to use them enough to matter, and those jets are irreplaceable for them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 9:07:51 PM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They probably could but your asking a question only 1 man on earth can answer: Putin. Who knows what that psycho is thinking. What is also true is that Russia can afford to bleed Ukraine dry, all while bleeding the US Treasury and our stockpile of weapons dry. Which they are doing rather effectively, by the way. Just yesterday it was announced that the US is buying Patriot missiles from Japan that are made domestically in Japan. There have been countless articles over the past 2 years about how low our reserve equipment, artillery, and defense systems have become as a result of Ukraine's issues. In a reversal, Japan to send Patriot missiles to US They can't, and not only do they know they can't, they know we know that. Every single modern weapon system that Russia has fielded in the invasion has failed. All, Su-30s, Su-34s, Su-35s, Mi-28s, Ka-52s, T-90s, T-14s, BMPTs etc, etc, is failing to perform and failing to protect their crews. There have been countless articles, repeating the same news story on our dwindling reserves and it all floats around 155MM shells, Stingers Javelins. There was a source document that was released by a Pentagon think tank that highlighted this issue. And it was widely distributed and distorted to represent a huge swath of our military readiness. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 9:14:45 PM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well, they have 8 pilots to start so losing a few may be a big deal. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Yeah, but hopefully they won't be losing pilots quickly. They will undoubtedly lose some Vipers, but if they are mostly flying defensive counter air, it will be over friendly territory, so the ones that manage to eject won't get captured. Well, they have 8 pilots to start so losing a few may be a big deal. As long as new ones get trained faster than they are lost, and if the west can keep scrounging up airframes, Ukrainian tacair will continue to grow while Russia's continues to shrink. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 9:17:13 PM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There's no choice. The ports of Kherson and Odesa are blocked, so they couldn't ship their grain out or ship goods in. Poland wouldn't let them ship it by rail either. So farmers don't have money for seed in the spring. About a third of the country is displaced, lost their homes and businesses. The unemployment rate is officially 35% but it's probably closer to 50%. Their govt is running a monthly deficit of $5 billion. https://www.npr.org/2022/11/01/1132167234/russia-ukraine-war-unemployment-displaced-economy But keep in mind that their economy was only $200 billion before the war and while the US is providing the bulk of military aid, the EU is providing the bulk of the financial aid: https://i.postimg.cc/dVn3PBr5/t-Au-Bi41-Lxv-Ww-KZex-bar-stacked-horizontal-figure-2-csv-final-1024x768-2.jpg Thank you for your response. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 9:19:30 PM EST
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You really don't get it at all. They are using strategic assets, successfully. What they aren't going to do is pivot this fight on the tactical level assets they know full well are not a match for western equipment, as in another ground invasion. I realize you cannot detach from the western line of thinking that equates the unwillingness to knuckle up and go tank on tank to losing. You should probably get over that since that's how wars are going to be fought from now on. There are losing strategic assets parked on the ground or in the Black Sea, not being used...effectively. The idea of "knuckling up, for tank on tank to losing?" "...since that's how wars are going to be fought from now on." No war ever, is going to be fought the same way as the current war is fought today. This has been the only constant in the entire history of warfare. You need to go back to square one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 9:19:58 PM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well as hard as it's going to be for you to believe, you are wrong. https://en.defence-ua.com/industries/how_many_tanks_a_month_russian_uralvagonzavod_can_produce_really-5921.html How many tanks do you think we make a month? I'm not sure it matters. Tanks have not made a significant difference in this war. Cheap drones you can buy for a few hundred bucks spot them from miles away and then they hit them with artillery or whatever. The Ukrainian offensive never gained any ground until they ditched the tanks and went in dismounted by foot. In Bakhmut and other urban battles like it they have only lost their tanks when they tried to use them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 9:21:23 PM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm not sure it matters. Tanks have not made a significant difference in this war. Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm not sure it matters. Tanks have not made a significant difference in this war. Neat, I'm pretty sure I've stated that 3-4 times in this page specifically. Quoted: Cheap drones you can buy for a few hundred bucks spot them from miles away and then they hit them with artillery or whatever. Russia was all in on drones from day one. They changed the scope of the war with long range OWAs and their greatest tactical victories have been from company-level strike UAS platforms like Lancet and FDC/ISR from systems like Orlan they had thousands of at the start of the war. As much as Ukraine loves to lean on drones for IO, that's a fight they are losing both on the battlefield and in the factories. Again, the hubris of the west to focus on things like tanks versus drones is still showing it's ass going on three years in. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 9:23:19 PM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: As long as new ones get trained faster than they are lost, and if the west can keep scrounging up airframes, Ukrainian tacair will continue to grow while Russia's continues to shrink. My understanding is 38 pilots in total have met requirements for training but only 6 have progressed to Denmark and 10 are attending basic familiarization and English language proficiency training in Britain. Where the other 22 are I’m not sure. I also have no information on ground crew training status. Netherlands appears to be the only country disclosing number of aircraft to be provided so far. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 9:28:10 PM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There are losing strategic assets parked on the ground or in the Black Sea, not being used...effectively. The idea of "knuckling up, for tank on tank to losing?" "...since that's how wars are going to be fought from now on." No war ever, is going to be fought the same way as the current war is fought today. This has been the only constant in the entire history of warfare. You need to go back to square one. There are some pretty consistent lessons to be learned here that we can carry forward into a hybrid and MDO environment, and one of them is we need to care much less about the things you seem to be extremely concerned with. You are the dinosaur here, and your line of thought needs to be violently stamped out of the military. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 9:29:01 PM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well as hard as it's going to be for you to believe, you are wrong. The 20x was an offhand generalization, but 10x is more realistic. China is helping them fix that right now. https://en.defence-ua.com/industries/how_many_tanks_a_month_russian_uralvagonzavod_can_produce_really-5921.html How many tanks do you think we make a month? 12. We have the ability to make 12, not how many we actually make. Germany can make 2. How many does Ukraine make? Once again, this war isn't going to be won by tanks. Tanks have barely made a difference outside of being long range targets. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Where are you getting the statstic of 20X Western capabilities combined? They have one active tank manufacturing plant...one, UralVagonZavod that produces 20 tanks per month, they are losing 60 per month. They are generating tanks from depots, not new production. Well as hard as it's going to be for you to believe, you are wrong. The 20x was an offhand generalization, but 10x is more realistic. China is helping them fix that right now. https://en.defence-ua.com/industries/how_many_tanks_a_month_russian_uralvagonzavod_can_produce_really-5921.html How many tanks do you think we make a month? 12. We have the ability to make 12, not how many we actually make. Germany can make 2. How many does Ukraine make? Once again, this war isn't going to be won by tanks. Tanks have barely made a difference outside of being long range targets. So, we make 12 plus Germany's 2. That's 14 per month Russia prior to China's involvement, makes 20 per month. So 14 vs 20, equals 20X...no, 10X. Keep in mind, we aren't losing any. Russia is losing 60 per month. But, it doesn't matter anyway because this war isn't going to won by tanks. Well, that's about the only accurate thing you've said all night. It's going to be determined by Russia's ability to throw men at our weapons while we fund it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 9:31:57 PM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So, we make 12 plus Germany's 2. That's 14 per month Russia prior to China's involvement, makes 20 per month. So 14 vs 20, equals 20X...no, 10X. Keep in mind, we aren't losing any. Russia is losing 60 per month. But, it doesn't matter anyway because this war isn't going to won by tanks. Well, that's about the only accurate thing you've said all night. It's going to be determined by Russia's ability to throw men at our weapons while we fund it. If you had read the article, Russia is surging to over 90 a month., but who cares? I'm more worried about the 10,000 long range OWAs they are producing. Who isn't losing any tanks? England lost two active duty tank companies to Ukraine, several of which are already tits up. Germany as well lost active duty tanks from service. It sure seems like NATO capability is indeed being lost, and it isn't only tanks by far. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 9:32:11 PM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There are some pretty consistent lessons to be learned here that we can carry forward into a hybrid and MDO environment, and one of them is we need to care much less about the things you seem to be extremely concerned with. You are the dinosaur here, and your line of thought needs to be violently stamped out of the military. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: There are losing strategic assets parked on the ground or in the Black Sea, not being used...effectively. The idea of "knuckling up, for tank on tank to losing?" "...since that's how wars are going to be fought from now on." No war ever, is going to be fought the same way as the current war is fought today. This has been the only constant in the entire history of warfare. You need to go back to square one. There are some pretty consistent lessons to be learned here that we can carry forward into a hybrid and MDO environment, and one of them is we need to care much less about the things you seem to be extremely concerned with. You are the dinosaur here, and your line of thought needs to be violently stamped out of the military. Judging by your understanding you don't seem to have served much time in the military at all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 9:35:33 PM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Judging by your understanding you don't seem to have served much time in the military at all. Lol. I understand you retired like a dozen years ago from a job that didn't require you to understand anything about the facets of this discussion. I will say that is not the case for me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 9:36:51 PM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Neat, I'm pretty sure I've stated that 3-4 times in this page specifically. Russia was all in on drones from day one. They changed the scope of the war with long range OWAs and their greatest tactical victories have been from company-level strike UAS platforms like Lancet and FDC/ISR from systems like Orlan they had thousands of at the start of the war. As much as Ukraine loves to lean on drones for IO, that's a fight they are losing both on the battlefield and in the factories. Again, the hubris of the west to focus on things like tanks versus drones is still showing it's ass going on three years in. Actually, Ukraine has been winning the tank war. Or at least they were when the classified documents were leaked this Spring: "Russia has also lost more equipment, with U.S. estimates reportedly at 2,048 tanks and 3,900 armored personnel carriers. Ukraine is estimated to have lost 468 tanks and 1,020 armored personnel carriers." "Currently, Russia has 419 tanks and 2,928 armored personnel carriers, with Ukraine possessing 802 tanks and 3,498 armored personnel carriers, according to the document, which however notes that Russia still has the upper hand in aviation and air defense." https://news.yahoo.com/leaked-documents-pentagon-estimates-ukraine-090200150.html Have you heard about the 1st Guards Tank Army? The US militarys has about 9 corps, while the Russian military has about 11 armies. Due to budget constraints Russia put all their most modern equipment and elite soldiers into the 1st Guards Tank Army. They were the ones that were supposed to fight NATO if we ever went toe-to-toe. The 1st Guards was decimated. They were sent to Kyiv in the opening days of the invasion. As winter became Spring, the ground was too muddy for the tanks so they were limited to the roads. The Ukrainians hid in the roadside swamps and forests and picked them off with javelins and NLAWS. Then they were sent to Kharkiv and was routed, all their tanks that weren't already destroyed were captured. Their commander was fired and they were sent to Moscow to be reconstituted. Russia has now pulled museum era T-55 tanks out of storage and not even upgrading them before sending to the front lines. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 9:36:59 PM EST
[#31]
Last week the media reported the Netherlands would deliver aircraft in days. But what is the definition of days? 30 days? I assumed NLT 31 December because a description of “next month” would be more fitting if it was going to be more than 8 days. With no acknowledgment by Kiev nor Dutch media stating they have been delivered already, I assume they are not delivered yet especially given the status of the pilots unless the 22 who could be in Romania are already cleared to operate them. But there’s no status in Dutch or Ukrainian media for the pilots not in Britain or the Netherlands, nor NATO press releases or US media, so who knows what’s going on without additional info other than the Dutch government stating another required step is being processed in order to finalize transfer. Since the Dutch say it’s not completed, I will assume no aircraft are transferred and operating in Ukraine without utter information from the involved parties
5 days ago Dutch news: https://nltimes.nl/2023/12/22/netherlands-supply-ukraine-18-f-16-fighter-jets  Attached File Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 9:38:12 PM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Who isn't losing any? England lost two active duty tank companies to Ukraine, several of which are already tits up. Germany as well lost active duty tanks from service. It sure seems like NATO capability is indeed being lost, and it isn't only tanks by far. What a handful? Russia has lost thousands, and count 3 men per typically, not to mention thousands of BMPs, with how many per? And how many aircraft has NATO lost?, now Russia? In a war of attrition Russia and China, don't have the logistics to maintain this, that's why Putin is buying shit ammunition from NK. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 9:39:18 PM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Actually, Ukraine has been winning the tank war. Or at least they were when the classified documents were leaked this Spring: "Russia has also lost more equipment, with U.S. estimates reportedly at 2,048 tanks and 3,900 armored personnel carriers. Ukraine is estimated to have lost 468 tanks and 1,020 armored personnel carriers." "Currently, Russia has 419 tanks and 2,928 armored personnel carriers, with Ukraine possessing 802 tanks and 3,498 armored personnel carriers, according to the document, which however notes that Russia still has the upper hand in aviation and air defense." https://news.yahoo.com/leaked-documents-pentagon-estimates-ukraine-090200150.html Have you heard about the 1st Guards Tank Army? The US militarys has about 9 corps, while the Russian military has about 11 armies. Due to budget constraints Russia put all their most modern equipment and elite soldiers into the 1st Guards Tank Army. They were the ones that were supposed to fight NATO if we ever went toe-to-toe. The 1st Guards was decimated. They were sent to Kyiv in the opening days of the invasion. As winter became Spring, the ground was too muddy for the tanks so they were limited to the roads. The Ukrainians hid in the roadside swamps and forests and picked them off with javelins and NLAWS. Then they were sent to Kharkiv and was routed, all their tanks that weren't already destroyed were captured. Their commander was fired and they were sent to Moscow to be reconstituted. I don't know what that has to do with literally anything at all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 9:43:54 PM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What a handful? Russia has lost thousands, and count 3 men per typically, not to mention thousands of BMPs, with how many per? And how many aircraft has NATO lost, now Russia? In a war of attrition Russia and China, don't have the logistics to maintain this, that's why Putin is buying shit ammunition from NK. Again, WTF are you talking about? Russia bought ammo once from NK as a stopgap while their factories were expanded by the Chinese. We bought ammo from fucking Pakistan. Now at the end of the day, they actually made positive actions to increase their production and are making exponentially more, and growing. The west has not. https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-ammunition-manufacturing-ukraine-west-officials-2023-9 https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-ramps-up-artillery-production-still-falling-short-western-official-says-2023-09-09/ The west is losing a lot of our shit and we aren't replacing it, only talking about replacing it. That will become a problem pretty soon with China, Iran, North Korea, or more likely, all of them. So the highlight is that we managed to reduce an Army that already was not a considerable tactical threat while gutting NATO. Neato. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 9:49:13 PM EST
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't know what that has to do with literally anything at all. If, due to budget constraints, the USA put all our best equipment and soldiers into one corps meant to fight a peer adversary and it was suddenly decimated with the enemy capturing or destroying all their equipment, what would say about that? For just 5-10% of our military budget and no blood lost, we've destroyed more than half of Russia's military equipment. According to Oryx, the best open source database there is, Russia has lost:
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html Russia has a GDP of $1.8 trillion compared to the US $26 trillion or Europe's $17 trillion or China's $17 trillion. Russia's defense budget is $100 billion next year (it was $66 billion before the invasion) compared to the US $880 billion or NATO's $1.26 trillion. I just don't see how Russia ever replaces this stuff, considering most of this was built in Soviet times and today's cost to replace is so high. There's a reason they never built the T-14 Armata tank or Su-57 stealth fighter jet, and only built hypersonic missiles with funding from India. They don't have the money.     |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 9:53:25 PM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If, due to budget constraints, the USA put all our best equipment and soldiers into one corps meant to fight a peer adversary and it was suddenly decimated with the enemy capturing or destroying all their equipment, what would say about that? For just 5-10% of our military budget and no blood lost, we've destroyed more than half of Russia's military equipment. According to Oryx, the best open source database there is, Russia has lost: So what? We all know Russia has lost a lot of men and weapons without you spamming the thread. Yet here we still are. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 9:54:33 PM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well as hard as it's going to be for you to believe, you are wrong. The 20x was an offhand generalization, but 10x is more realistic. China is helping them fix that right now. https://en.defence-ua.com/industries/how_many_tanks_a_month_russian_uralvagonzavod_can_produce_really-5921.html How many tanks do you think we make a month? 12. We have the ability to make 12, not how many we actually make. Germany can make 2. How many does Ukraine make? Once again, this war isn't going to be won by tanks. Tanks have barely made a difference outside of being long range targets. How much of what we are seeing is the new reality of war vs this just being a tactical shit show? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 10:09:54 PM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What a handful? Russia has lost thousands, and count 3 men per typically, not to mention thousands of BMPs, with how many per? And how many aircraft has NATO lost, now Russia? In a war of attrition Russia and China, don't have the logistics to maintain this, that's why Putin is buying shit ammunition from NK. Losing thousands of tanks is nothing for Russia but losing 14 from the UK is catastrophic 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 10:11:47 PM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Do you think that is a symptom of new technology and tactics, drones etc or a symptom of two armies that can't utilize tanks in a coherent combined arms effort? How much of what we are seeing is the new reality of war vs this just being a tactical shit show? As always, a little column A, a little column B. This is the first major war fought in a full multi-domain, Generation 5/hybrid environment. It's being fought by military luddites that don't understand the shit sandwich they are now in or how everything has changed. Those luddites include key players in the US/NATO as well as leaders on both sides of Russia/Ukraine. There's plenty of them in this thread. It's 1917 all over again with artillery and aviation doing their own thing while ground forces make useless charges into certain death for no tactical value. Except those independent enabling assets that are fighting their own decentralized fights are now EW, IW, Cyber, Space, SIGINT/MASINT, UAS, etc... Tanks are driving in circles getting destroyed from resources 30-50KM away, after being seen by a myriad of all-source assets anywhere from 1 mile away to space. Lines of contact are now virtual. Nobody has figured out how to effectively negate that on what is now a very static battlefield, and we may never figure that out. The trend in the US to address this is tons of smaller units and systems exercising mission command and operating in a decentralized manner with a shared goal. We realize the enemy can see literally everything at all times, so we plan on spreading out and moving real fast and hoping they can't target all of us. That's tough to do when the only mission is to go in one direction and you let the enemy plant miles of area denial resources in your way. Which is why the Russian did it. They want to focus on fires, both short and long range, versus tactical engagements. I will say that Russia did a lot to focus specifically on adjusting their forces to these new domains through RNGW, but the actual large scale employment was still fairly new to them at the beginning of the war. Part of that hybrid concept is utilizing DIME and MDO together, which is why we saw Iran jumpstart the ITN in the Middle East to influence the larger strategic picture both resource wise as well as influencing the information sphere. Seems to be working. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 10:13:52 PM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So NATO allies won't need to have as much armament as they did pre war when this whole thing is over? They'll be able to commit even less to the alliance? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Ita depleting Russia's military capabilities as well, which by extension reduces the Western capabilites that need to be committed to the European theater to counter it. So NATO allies won't need to have as much armament as they did pre war when this whole thing is over? They'll be able to commit even less to the alliance? Geopolitics is a tricky game. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 10:18:14 PM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Lol. I understand you retired like a dozen years ago from a job that didn't require you to understand anything about the facets of this discussion. I will say that is not the case for me. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Judging by your understanding you don't seem to have served much time in the military at all. Lol. I understand you retired like a dozen years ago from a job that didn't require you to understand anything about the facets of this discussion. I will say that is not the case for me. No, I retired 3 years ago, and I spent a little time as an aircrew member on couple aircraft where I spent a lot of time understanding the capabilities and limitations of MANPAD systems, and I will state truthfully that I have been engaged and missed by an SA-7, while I was on Hercs as well as a few RPGs. So, I can only speak to my understanding of the failings of Russia's vaulted and extensive paper-tiger military. All I will say is, I spent a little time in Georgia...and a little a bit in Ukraine in 2009 for work, I have a little understanding of why we are there...just sayin'. But yes, I am retired. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 10:18:53 PM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I bet China is happy though. I hope so. I need them to move north in a resource grab aka "making sure their populations in Siberia are properly represented" aka just what Russia did. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 10:21:13 PM EST
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well as hard as it's going to be for you to believe, you are wrong. The 20x was an offhand generalization, but 10x is more realistic. China is helping them fix that right now. https://en.defence-ua.com/industries/how_many_tanks_a_month_russian_uralvagonzavod_can_produce_really-5921.html How many tanks do you think we make a month? 12. We have the ability to make 12, not how many we actually make. Germany can make 2. How many does Ukraine make? Once again, this war isn't going to be won by tanks. Tanks have barely made a difference outside of being long range targets. Why do you think Lima is limited to 12? They did 55/mo 25 years ago. What’s the limiting factor? Anniston has done up to 33 rebuilds a month in the last 15 years btw. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 10:21:17 PM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No, I retired 3 years ago, and I spent a little time as an aircrew member Quote HistoryQuoted: No, I retired 3 years ago, and I spent a little time as an aircrew member So your military experience is literally not relevant at all here, so you may want to hold that card in your pocket instead of dropping it on the table. Quoted: All I will say is, I spent a little time in Georgia...and a little a bit in Ukraine in 2009 for work, I have a little understanding of why we are there...just sayin'. Hmm, me too, among a lot of other places relevant here. I'll go ahead and bet my work there was a bit different...and much more relevant to this discussion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 10:21:36 PM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What everyone who supports Russia doesn't understand is this: This should have been an easy victory for Russia, it isn't and they have paid an incredible toll for almost nothing to show for it. The "2nd" best military in the world, is failing to co-ordinate and co-operate on what is "their" own turf, this should have been a cake walk for them. They have lost major naval assets against a navy that basically doesn't exist anymore. All their major modern weapons systems are failing not only against Western technology, but against obsolete versions of their own older equipment. Basically their new shit isn't even as good as their old shit and they now have even less of it. They have almost completely wiped out their prior professional military experience. At this rate, NCOs and Officers will be nothing more than titles handed out to in experienced men/boys, leading other men/boys who know equally little. They can produced 10000 tanks, planes, helicopters, ships, a year and none of it matters if the men driving the equipment don't know how to use it effectively. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Ukraine has spent the past two years grossly misrepresenting their position, and conducting controlled IO targeted at not only Russia, but their own benefactors. The west followed suit and has tried to keep a lid on all the negative effects and consequences towards ourselves as well. That only works for so long in the modern world. Once people find out the truth, which they always will, the blowback will be a thousand times worse than if they were honest the entire time. This is what we are seeing now, and Ukraine and the west are about to become their own TLO in a future OIE/MDO war college lesson plan with how badly they fucked this up. Ive been saying this from the start, and pretty much everything I stated from the week before the invasion has become reality. The Uke brigade doesn't get it, but their efforts may be well intentioned but have had more impact for Russia than Ukraine by far. The narrative doesn't exist anymore. Dude, that’s out there. WTF are you talking about? How do you equate that statement to this; 1.) Russia has not captured a strategic or even tactically important foot of ground in over a year. (2.) Ukraine won the Battle of Hostomel and defeated the initial Russian invasion. A gamble they could capture Kiev in three days, force the Ukrainian government into exile and take the rest at leisure. Didn’t work out so well. (3.) Ukraine counter-offensives have driven the Russian Army from Kiev, Kharkov, and Kherson. Forced full retreats. (4.) Russia has also made zero progress taking two of their stated goals: capturing Donets & Luhansk Oblasts. ZERO Progress (5.) Ukraine has successfully defended its airspace even outnumber 1,800 to 100 in the air. Ukrainian airspace is so dangerous Russia is afraid to deploy its VERY limited supply of SU-57 or even SU-35S for fear of them failing into Western hands. (6.) For all the talk of “Increased Russian Production” they are still forced to beg Iran for cheap drones to use mostly to attack Ukrainian civilians. Russia would love to buy longer range missiles, but Iran says no. Same goes for missile production. Russia manages to build roughly 20-30 a month, and then immediately fire them off at civilian targets. Neither China nor previously mentioned Iran will sell them longer range missiles. (7.) Russia once had the Black Sea essentially captured and threatened Odessa with an Amphibious attack. Those days are long over. 20% of the Black Sea Fleet is at the bottom, the Russian Navy has been forced to withdraw from Sevastopol, and now even further East Crimean ports are too dangerous. The blockade has been 100% broken and Ukrainian grain exports are flowing freely. Essentially the Black Sea is now a Ukrainian lake, which is funny because they don’t really have a Navy. (8.) The “Long War” goes to Ukraine, they are supported directly by over 50 nations with economies over 60 trillion plus. Russia has an economy of 1.5 trillion and only has allies in; North Korea, Yemen, Syria. Attempts by Russia to get Belarus to join failed miserably. China and Iran are 100% Frenemies. Neither cares but they are willing to profit from Russian’s weakness. Hint: No Chinese Missiles, etc. (9.) I place absolutely zero stock in any talk Western Nations are going to abandon Ukraine. Absolutely zero. Way too much ultra powerful Western money people have bet on Ukraine. Hint: Blackrock. (10.) Remember Russia is spending 1.5 Billion on propaganda to undermine Western Support for Ukraine. Don't trust everything you read. (11.) Well over 60% of the Russian tank inventory sits in Ukrainian scrap yards. The T-14 is hidden, the T-90M preforms no better than a forty-year-old T-72. Losses are so great 1950’s T-55’s are being brought back into service. It will take decades to rebuild the Russian tank brigades destroyed in Ukraine. (12.) F-16's are coming. What everyone who supports Russia doesn't understand is this: This should have been an easy victory for Russia, it isn't and they have paid an incredible toll for almost nothing to show for it. The "2nd" best military in the world, is failing to co-ordinate and co-operate on what is "their" own turf, this should have been a cake walk for them. They have lost major naval assets against a navy that basically doesn't exist anymore. All their major modern weapons systems are failing not only against Western technology, but against obsolete versions of their own older equipment. Basically their new shit isn't even as good as their old shit and they now have even less of it. They have almost completely wiped out their prior professional military experience. At this rate, NCOs and Officers will be nothing more than titles handed out to in experienced men/boys, leading other men/boys who know equally little. They can produced 10000 tanks, planes, helicopters, ships, a year and none of it matters if the men driving the equipment don't know how to use it effectively. Not to mention they got their ass kicked at Snake Island. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 10:23:09 PM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why do people keeping linking to this like the article means anything? Author "Holly Ellyatt writes for CNBC.com focusing on European macro-economics and politics. She has led digital coverage of the European financial crisis, U.K. and euro zone politics, Brexit, the Covid-19 pandemic and Russia and the war in Ukraine. Holly studied European Social and Political Studies at University College London (UCL) and then completed a MA in Broadcast Journalism at City University. She joined CNBC in 2012, having worked previously in digital, radio and film production." All we need are her pronouns.. Actually, it's significant because of who wrote it. I read CNBC regularly to keep up on the stock markets. Since the beginning of the war they have featured their Ukraine War tracker and the featured stories have been as reliably rah-rah for Ukraine as any NAFO Twitter feed. I posted some links from just a couple of months ago on the first page of this thread to illustrate the general drift of their coverage. So when a openly pro-Ukraine source like CNBC suddenly decides to reverse course and admit Ukraine isn't winning, it's a big deal. It's part of a narrative shift I've noticed in the US Media over the past two months, as it has become obvious to everyone that the counteroffensive went exactly nowhere and all those stories about Russia's imminent collapse weren't going to come true. CNBC appears to have been Red-Pilled on Ukraine. The article is a sober assessment of the difficulties facing Ukraine, which is probably an unpleasant wake-up for people who spent the entire summer huffing blue and yellow copium. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 10:25:27 PM EST
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why do you think Lima is limited to 12? They did 55/mo 25 years ago. What’s the limiting factor? Anniston has done up to 33 rebuilds a month in the last 15 years btw. The limiting factor is us. We made 22 tanks in 2023. https://www.defensenews.com/land/2022/05/18/army-acquisition-chief-would-welcome-tank-ramp-up-if-congress-funds-it/ https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2023/11/18/us-produces-12-abrams-tanks-per-month-in-the-1980s-it-was-75/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 10:27:12 PM EST
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Losing thousands of tanks is nothing for Russia but losing 14 from the UK is catastrophic Who said that? Why are people so emotional about and cheering for the equipment scoreboard? From what Daemon and others are saying this war is past the maneuver phase. Who gives a shit about tanks if they're largely ineffective on both ends? Russia seems to be re-stocking arty and long range missiles faster than Ukraine, which is also in danger of running out of SAMs. I love seeing Russian shit blown up, but I'm not sure they can be displaced, which is what you should be cheering for, with fucking tanks and IFVs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 10:28:33 PM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well as hard as it's going to be for you to believe, you are wrong. The 20x was an offhand generalization, but 10x is more realistic. China is helping them fix that right now. https://en.defence-ua.com/industries/how_many_tanks_a_month_russian_uralvagonzavod_can_produce_really-5921.html How many tanks do you think we make a month? 12. We have the ability to make 12, not how many we actually make. Germany can make 2. How many does Ukraine make? Once again, this war isn't going to be won by tanks. Tanks have barely made a difference outside of being long range targets. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Where are you getting the statstic of 20X Western capabilities combined? They have one active tank manufacturing plant...one, UralVagonZavod that produces 20 tanks per month, they are losing 60 per month. They are generating tanks from depots, not new production. Well as hard as it's going to be for you to believe, you are wrong. The 20x was an offhand generalization, but 10x is more realistic. China is helping them fix that right now. https://en.defence-ua.com/industries/how_many_tanks_a_month_russian_uralvagonzavod_can_produce_really-5921.html How many tanks do you think we make a month? 12. We have the ability to make 12, not how many we actually make. Germany can make 2. How many does Ukraine make? Once again, this war isn't going to be won by tanks. Tanks have barely made a difference outside of being long range targets. I really wish we would have closed that useless tank factory down like GD wanted a couple years back. Fucking MIC bleeding the taxpayer dry with their $300000 BoD jobs and make work bullshit of spreading pork to congressional districts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 10:32:16 PM EST
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The limiting factor is us. We made 22 tanks in 2023. https://www.defensenews.com/land/2022/05/18/army-acquisition-chief-would-welcome-tank-ramp-up-if-congress-funds-it/ https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2023/11/18/us-produces-12-abrams-tanks-per-month-in-the-1980s-it-was-75/ One article cites Doug Bush and others saying 15/mo is great but the capacity exists for more and the other is a Russian influenced site that cites Polish media military analysts who say that 12/mo is the max. Which is it? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
