User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/2/2022 1:13:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: polishkebasa]
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bassgasm: Conducting military exercises is kind of like taking a test where you wrote the test, you take the test, and you grade yourself on the test. Whether or not the test has any value is determined on how you judge yourself. It's not hard to imagine Russia got that wrong. Fighters are still relevant. Taking down dated Su-27s and MiG-29s with poorly trained pilots is one thing. Taking down newer aircraft with good pilots and tactics is something else entirely. Also, MANPADs have a pretty limited altitude/range. They're great against helicopters and slower fixed wing aircraft operating close to the deck, but they're not useful against fast movers at higher altitude. Tanks are a tougher debate. They're still scary and deadly on the open battlefield, especially with good tactics and good logistics, but as it gets easier to kill them, the economics and logistics make less sense. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bassgasm: Originally Posted By martin248: Originally Posted By Mad_Anthony: Originally Posted By martin248: Of course, but this is at some level a technical thread. What is the reason Russia hasn't used its air power? In theory it should have flown an overwhelming number of SU's over Ukraine after the initial cruise missile strike against airfields and AA, like every other invasion in recent times. But that didn't happen. They flew only limited sorties. That left the skies contested, and it's the reason those drones are still flying as well. They have suffered huge losses as a result and STILL no wave of SU's. They are all sitting on the ground in Russia. Why? Someone touched on this last week. I heard Russian pilots don't get many actual flight training hours, probably because the Russian gov can't afford to pay for the fuel, aircraft maintenance or pilot salaries. Then you have to consider all the air defence weapons that have been sent in to Ukraine; Russia can't afford to lose planes. Wasn't it Longshanks who said arrows cost money but the dead cost nothing? I think the question I have is, is this a failure of the Russian army, some gross incompetence? Or is this a technology change in the nature of warfare? If the Russian equipment just doesn't work, or the pilots are just incompetent, they should have known that when they did all those training exercises in the weeks leading up to the invasion. It's severe incompetence on many levels if they didn't know they weren't ready, or invaded even though they knew they weren't ready. Or it could be a change in the nature of war, in which case this war has two lessons: #1 Tanks are no longer relevant, and #2 Fighters are no longer relevant Because both can be destroyed be cheap man portable devices carried by infantry or by drones. Conducting military exercises is kind of like taking a test where you wrote the test, you take the test, and you grade yourself on the test. Whether or not the test has any value is determined on how you judge yourself. It's not hard to imagine Russia got that wrong. Fighters are still relevant. Taking down dated Su-27s and MiG-29s with poorly trained pilots is one thing. Taking down newer aircraft with good pilots and tactics is something else entirely. Also, MANPADs have a pretty limited altitude/range. They're great against helicopters and slower fixed wing aircraft operating close to the deck, but they're not useful against fast movers at higher altitude. Tanks are a tougher debate. They're still scary and deadly on the open battlefield, especially with good tactics and good logistics, but as it gets easier to kill them, the economics and logistics make less sense. +1 on the air part. Tanks are a tough one and the anti tank vs tank pendulum has swung back and forth a couple times in the last 70 years. There was a time that it was though heat would make heavy armor obsolete (of course not everyone subscribed to this idea) and here we are back to some tanks pushing 70 tons. Traditionally tanks have a shock and standoff value compared to infantry as well as being harder to displace by arty (although anti armor smart arty may have changed the equation). I would take note that alot of this Russian armor seems to be destroyed in a vulnerable state as in driving in a column on an open road where everyone can see you, so that may not be indecative of their performance in an assualt. It seems Russians also didn't learn their lesson from the past about driving tanks around enemy positions alone. I think there also some takeaway for legacy eastern armor design which prioritizes size over survivability, there is a thought that with how accurate everything is now these days having a smaller vehicle is not worth it at the expense of protection, ergonomics and safe ammo storage, some of the new wheeled ifvs are good example with some of them being bigger than an m1 is some dimensions |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2022 1:14:10 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CPT_CAVEMAN: Pretty much. Vlad will need to go after them before they join NATO? Norway is NATO. The others mentioned are now rethinking it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2022 1:14:18 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By M-1975: More POWs captured in Bashtansky district of the Nikolaev area https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/177432/photo_2022-03-02_09-36-39_jpg-2298611.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/177432/photo_2022-03-02_09-36-41_jpg-2298612.JPG If I were some 20 year old conscript I'd be fucking elated to be captured |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2022 1:14:51 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryI'm amazed by these human chain videos, I expected ultra-violence from the Russians and they're being gentler than mall cops (most of the time). Not sure how much of this is ROE and strict orders and how much is a total lack of interest in fighting this war.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2022 1:15:06 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By realwar: Ukrainian Regiment "Azov" leads artillery from a drone in the village of Stary Krym near Mariupol  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3fWUOWaNvoSo drones have completely changed the artillery game huh? |
|
|
|
WA, USA
|
Posted: 3/2/2022 1:15:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: martin248]
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Lightning_P38: It comes down to airpower being more than who has the best fighter or helicopter. Dogfights are impressive, but don't accomplish much. The Russians have plenty of air assets, but can't fully utilize them because the Ukainians have western technology on their side. The Ukrainians are able to put manpads where they need to be, when they are needed often enough to be effective. They are getting strong enough reports on the ground to root out fuel and rocket trucks, and fast moving tanks, once again often enough to be effective. Could they mount a huge aerial blitz? Sure, but they would have to expect heavy losses to critical aircraft, even if the Ukrainians are only slightly effective. Same with the tanks, the Javelin and Blame missiles are effective, portable and plentiful. The Ukrainians drones are likely deployed more like US Army smaller drones, not Air Force drones. That is decentralized and very mobile. A few hundred feet of solid tarmac or corrugated steel is all the runway they need. Any back country road will do, they can be maintained in a large barn or garage. That makes them troublesome. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Lightning_P38: Originally Posted By martin248: I think the question I have is, is this a failure of the Russian army, some gross incompetence? Or is this a technology change in the nature of warfare? If the Russian equipment just doesn't work, or the pilots are just incompetent, they should have known that when they did all those training exercises in the weeks leading up to the invasion. It's severe incompetence on many levels if they didn't know they weren't ready, or invaded even though they knew they weren't ready. Or it could be a change in the nature of war, in which case this war has two lessons: #1 Tanks are no longer relevant, and #2 Fighters are no longer relevant Because both can be destroyed be cheap man portable devices carried by infantry or by drones. Could they mount a huge aerial blitz? Sure, but they would have to expect heavy losses to critical aircraft, even if the Ukrainians are only slightly effective. Same with the tanks, the Javelin and Blame missiles are effective, portable and plentiful. The Ukrainians drones are likely deployed more like US Army smaller drones, not Air Force drones. That is decentralized and very mobile. A few hundred feet of solid tarmac or corrugated steel is all the runway they need. Any back country road will do, they can be maintained in a large barn or garage. That makes them troublesome. Ok, that sounds plausible. If so, the reality is that with the backing of a real superpower (TBD Russia is still one) all you wrote would be true in ANY war for ANY invader. If next month the US invaded Eastern WTFistan, and China was feeding their defenders the best man portable anti air and anti tank missiles, we'd be in the same boat. We'd be unwilling to commit F35's except for very targeted missions, and it would leave our infantry and armor exposed to drone strikes, just like theirs. Our supply lines would be equally harassed and to win we would need to commit to a meat grinder where our infantry eventually attrits theirs. So it seems that, whether all nations have caught up technologically or not, the nature of warfare has changed, and changed in a way that is teaching the Russians a very hard lesson. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2022 1:17:07 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MBUZICHOMA: I read into the entire story on this. It said the Ukranian pilots were going to be there for at least 2 weeks training. The Polish upgraded the electronics on them and need to teach the pilots the new systems. I don't know, but personally I doubt they will go back to Ukraine. Flying into Ukraine from a Nato country would be seen as an act of war against Russia. I might be wrong though Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MBUZICHOMA: Originally Posted By BigB32: Originally Posted By Action45: Cannot confirm, but being reported. Fingers crossed https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/108967/73BD88D8-C814-4333-975F-6BD2338D8C72_jpe-2298591.JPG
Why would they say this? Doesn't make sense I read into the entire story on this. It said the Ukranian pilots were going to be there for at least 2 weeks training. The Polish upgraded the electronics on them and need to teach the pilots the new systems. I don't know, but personally I doubt they will go back to Ukraine. Flying into Ukraine from a Nato country would be seen as an act of war against Russia. I might be wrong though Come on guys, this ain't rocket science. Poland flies the planes to do border patrol. Pilots have engine trouble, because we all know how troublesome those Russian engines are, and land on a road. Pilots gets out to get something to eat while waiting for ground crews to arrive. Those dastardly Ukrainians go OH LOOK! Someone left perfectly good planes just sitting there. Rush across the border with some of those little trucks they use to pull planes around with, which they they just happen to have several of, and pull it across the border into Ukraine. Ukrainian pilots goes Yeah! They finally repaired our planes! They climb in and fly it off to kill Russians. Polish pilots comes out and go HOLY SHIT! Someone stole our planes. Poland files formal protest at the UN about Ukraine steeling their stuff, NATO sends a strongly worded letter and Ukraine agrees to pay restitution of 1 Russian ruble per plane. Huzzah! Mazel Tov! Slava Ukrani! Long love the Ukrainian Air Force! 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2022 1:17:08 PM EDT
[#8]
ex-BMP, sorry can't embed.
https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/t3xlig/ukrainian_bmp1_destroyed_what_seems_to_be_a_bmp3/ In that vid, the infantry might not have gotten out, but overall there seems to be a lot of dead IFVs and relatively little infantry overall. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2022 1:17:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: GenYRevolverGuy]
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Scott: Absolutely true. I was speaking in the context of breaching the capsule protecting the occupants. Blowing the front axle up or something like it is entirely easier and sometimes almost as good. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Scott: Originally Posted By Bassgasm: Originally Posted By Ryan_Scott: Originally Posted By kncook: I know the M72 LAW is insufficient on MBTs but 2.7k of them from one country would really beat up the BMPs, trucks, and Tigr-M stuff. Would a M72 LAW defeat an MRAP type vehicle? MRAP? Generally yes. The uparmored MRAPs with ceramic and ERA blocks? Probably not. But those aren’t common worldwide. I don't know if it's been discussed in this thread as it's relevant to every land combat vehicle (not just MRAPs), but there's a difference between a kill and a mobility kill. With a kill, the vehicle is destroyed, it's out of the fight entirely, and the crew is probably gone, too. With a mobility kill, the vehicle can no longer move, and it might not be repairable, but the crew is mostly intact, and the weapons are likely still usable. Mobility kills are still generally a good thing. The vehicle can no longer chase you or attempt to maneuver around you, and stationary vehicles tend to be very vulnerable. It also forces that vehicle's unit to make a decision to cover, recover, or abandon the vehicle/crew. Specific to MRAPs, they're pretty good at protecting crews from IEDs, grenades, and small arms, but they tend to be pretty easy to incapacitate, at least relative to other military vehicles. They might be big and cool looking, but at the end of the day, they're just trucks, and the drivetrain components are generally not well protected at all. Absolutely true. I was speaking in the context of breaching the capsule protecting the occupants. Blowing the front axle up or something like it is entirely easier and sometimes almost as good. And a mobility kill can be preferable as an ambush tactic, too. Immobilize a TIGR/MRAP with a small IED or anti-material rifle, wait for his buddies to gather around, and then drop in a Javelin or three... |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 3/2/2022 1:18:17 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Action45: So drones have completely changed the artillery game huh? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Action45: Originally Posted By realwar: Ukrainian Regiment "Azov" leads artillery from a drone in the village of Stary Krym near Mariupol https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3fWUOWaNvoSo drones have completely changed the artillery game huh? Drones + Excalibur (just a guess) |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2022 1:18:20 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Mal_means_bad: I'm amazed by these human chain videos, I expected ultra-violence from the Russians and they're being gentler than mall cops (most of the time). Not sure how much of this is ROE and strict orders and how much is a total lack of interest in fighting this war. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2022 1:19:27 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HappyCamel: My understanding is Vortex got optics to some euro volunteers assisting the Kurds against ISIS, and it seemed pretty public so I assume there was a legal channel. Retail in Euro possibly? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HappyCamel: Originally Posted By BerettaGuy: Originally Posted By HappyCamel: Originally Posted By BerettaGuy: Originally Posted By BLKVooDoo: Originally Posted By HappyCamel: Originally Posted By Nutro: @EEsmith Do you have plates (Body armor)? Are plates covered under ITAR? Yes but there are exemptions for press, VIPs, etc. Not sure, just answered the question I saw. If anyone lies and says they are going in as press but intended to go and fight there will be charges when they get back. ITAR is nothing to fuck with. My understanding is Vortex got optics to some euro volunteers assisting the Kurds against ISIS, and it seemed pretty public so I assume there was a legal channel. Retail in Euro possibly? I don't understand your comment. Be sure @ BerettaGuy me as I can't keep up with this thread. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2022 1:19:32 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By martin248: What you're describing is the way a tiny country would operate, where they might only have 20 fighters and they can't take risks. Instead Russia has about 300 SU's within reach of Ukraine and a lot more elsewhere, including a good number of latest generation fighters. SU-34's escorted by a large number of SU-30's and SU-35's should be able to destroy any air resistance fairly quickly given those numbers. But they didn't do that. UKR didn't shoot them down (only a couple), they remained grounded. So either they can't for logistics reasons, didn't for incompetence reasons, or won't because they know of a real military reasons not to do so. Also, is a SU-35 really that vulnerable to a stinger? Once the big launchers are knocked out how much of a threat is that to an advanced fighter at altitude? Honest question, as I have no idea. Anyway, launching a huge ground operation before achieving air superiority just seems ridiculous to me so I am trying to understand why they would do that. Almost like the Russian military is throwing the fight, maybe because they want Putin out? How many of those are likely air worthy? How many capable pilots do they have? How many maintenance people do they have? I'm pretty sure their logistics are fucked everywhere. I do agree to some extent that it is suprising we haven't seen more of their air assets in battle, but they also can't afford to use many of them either. In my eyes, they are built and trained to defend Russia from their home bases. They cannot project outside of their own areas with any type of efficiency. Based on what we are seeing with all of their other equipment, they can't keep all those assets flying at once. Limited maintenance, parts, missiles/bombs, fuel, air crews, storage, etc. They just can't do it in any real numbers without abandoning their current posts. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2022 1:20:15 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Mal_means_bad: I'm amazed by these human chain videos, I expected ultra-violence from the Russians and they're being gentler than mall cops (most of the time). Not sure how much of this is ROE and strict orders and how much is a total lack of interest in fighting this war. I'm not sure I could crush a bunch of women that are singing and not trying to kill me. Tier One de-escalation. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2022 1:20:44 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Doritodust: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/470154/CAE69388-0BBB-466B-AA60-0C13F70106C2_jpe-2298670.JPG Anybody believe this? Posted by team osint telegram Likely 8-10x that easy |
|
|
|
JPN
|
Posted: 3/2/2022 1:20:53 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bassgasm: The simple answer is most likely this: They can't. Even if your nation is an economic and industrial powerhouse with a bad ass military, dealing with the scenario the Ukrainians are bringing to the table would be very difficult and costly. A nation experiencing an economic collapse with a sketchy military and soldiers that don't have will to fight? Nope. That ain't gonna work. That's why I can't sleep. The logical outcome of this event comes down to very few scenarios. A) This is a planned and coordinated effort between Russia and the West, Ukraine is just being sacrificed in a pre-negotiated deal. - Highly Unlikely B) Russia thought this would be fast and easy, and over in a few weeks. - Possible, but highly unlikely because they knew of the training of Ukrainian forces and the weapons transfers, they knew Ukrainian special forces and regular forces have planned and prepared for this invasion. C) Russia is totally fucked up and their planning, logistics, and tactics, and these losses are just indicative of where they are as a military. - Possibly true, due to their fallback and leverage of nuclear deterrence, and they accept the losses as part of a long term strategy The problem with all these scenarios, is if Russia starts losing, and they are embarrassed in the eyes of the world, and they are economically destroyed, how do they retaliate? How does Putin save face? |
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 3/2/2022 1:21:02 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tech-Com: It could be this, but I still hope its RUS warship
If that map is correct on the position of the ship, it can't be. You wouldn't see it 200km from Odessa. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2022 1:22:07 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By martin248: I think the question I have is, is this a failure of the Russian army, some gross incompetence? Or is this a technology change in the nature of warfare? If the Russian equipment just doesn't work, or the pilots are just incompetent, they should have known that when they did all those training exercises in the weeks leading up to the invasion. It's severe incompetence on many levels if they didn't know they weren't ready, or invaded even though they knew they weren't ready. Or it could be a change in the nature of war, in which case this war has two lessons: #1 Tanks are no longer relevant, and #2 Fighters are no longer relevant Because both can be destroyed be cheap man portable devices carried by infantry or by drones. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By martin248: Originally Posted By Mad_Anthony: Originally Posted By martin248: Of course, but this is at some level a technical thread. What is the reason Russia hasn't used its air power? In theory it should have flown an overwhelming number of SU's over Ukraine after the initial cruise missile strike against airfields and AA, like every other invasion in recent times. But that didn't happen. They flew only limited sorties. That left the skies contested, and it's the reason those drones are still flying as well. They have suffered huge losses as a result and STILL no wave of SU's. They are all sitting on the ground in Russia. Why? Someone touched on this last week. I heard Russian pilots don't get many actual flight training hours, probably because the Russian gov can't afford to pay for the fuel, aircraft maintenance or pilot salaries. Then you have to consider all the air defence weapons that have been sent in to Ukraine; Russia can't afford to lose planes. Wasn't it Longshanks who said arrows cost money but the dead cost nothing? I think the question I have is, is this a failure of the Russian army, some gross incompetence? Or is this a technology change in the nature of warfare? If the Russian equipment just doesn't work, or the pilots are just incompetent, they should have known that when they did all those training exercises in the weeks leading up to the invasion. It's severe incompetence on many levels if they didn't know they weren't ready, or invaded even though they knew they weren't ready. Or it could be a change in the nature of war, in which case this war has two lessons: #1 Tanks are no longer relevant, and #2 Fighters are no longer relevant Because both can be destroyed be cheap man portable devices carried by infantry or by drones. NO....and NO... when I was a simple Hungarian conscript back in '90 and '91 before the Russkies left, they were surprised and shocked on how well we Hungarians kept our equipment and kept up above and beyond on maintenance. They.....weren't up to date.....simple crap like oil changes and filters and checking on the treads and other stuff wasn't into their agenda..they just ran it and ran it and ran it..... Stuff like fluid was stolen or used. We saw instances where a can was supposed to have brake fluid and even hydraulic fluid and it was USED..someone was emptying it out and putting back the used fluid and oil...... The next week over... going to the flea market outside of the Soviet base near Veszprem and sure enough..there was brand new fluid and oil.  Nothing has changed in 30 years and I would be a betting man on that. Yes I am eating crow for thinking and being stupid that Russia wouldn't invade.. but Crow is delicious and humble pie is sweet. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2022 1:22:17 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CS223: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/470154/E251C98C-7CEA-487A-B823-649FBAC6FAB2_jpe-2298672.JPG I couldn't believe it,  I had to look it up, its a fucking pulse jet powered drone.  It's not a drone that picks targets, it's a drone that IS the target. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2022 1:22:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Bushamster21]
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By martin248: Ok, that sounds plausible. If so, the reality is that with the backing of a real superpower (TBD Russia is still one) all you wrote would be true in ANY war for ANY invader. If next month the US invaded Eastern WTFistan, and China was feeding their defenders the best man portable anti air and anti tank missiles, we'd be in the same boat. We'd be unwilling to commit F35's except for very targeted missions, and it would leave our infantry and armor exposed to drone strikes, just like theirs. Out supply lines would be equally harassed and to win we would need to commit to a meat grinder where our infantry eventually attrits theirs. So it seems that, whether all nations have caught up technologically or not, the nature of warfare has changed, and changed in a way that is teaching the Russians a very hard lesson. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By martin248: Originally Posted By Lightning_P38: Originally Posted By martin248: I think the question I have is, is this a failure of the Russian army, some gross incompetence? Or is this a technology change in the nature of warfare? If the Russian equipment just doesn't work, or the pilots are just incompetent, they should have known that when they did all those training exercises in the weeks leading up to the invasion. It's severe incompetence on many levels if they didn't know they weren't ready, or invaded even though they knew they weren't ready. Or it could be a change in the nature of war, in which case this war has two lessons: #1 Tanks are no longer relevant, and #2 Fighters are no longer relevant Because both can be destroyed be cheap man portable devices carried by infantry or by drones. Could they mount a huge aerial blitz? Sure, but they would have to expect heavy losses to critical aircraft, even if the Ukrainians are only slightly effective. Same with the tanks, the Javelin and Blame missiles are effective, portable and plentiful. The Ukrainians drones are likely deployed more like US Army smaller drones, not Air Force drones. That is decentralized and very mobile. A few hundred feet of solid tarmac or corrugated steel is all the runway they need. Any back country road will do, they can be maintained in a large barn or garage. That makes them troublesome. Ok, that sounds plausible. If so, the reality is that with the backing of a real superpower (TBD Russia is still one) all you wrote would be true in ANY war for ANY invader. If next month the US invaded Eastern WTFistan, and China was feeding their defenders the best man portable anti air and anti tank missiles, we'd be in the same boat. We'd be unwilling to commit F35's except for very targeted missions, and it would leave our infantry and armor exposed to drone strikes, just like theirs. Out supply lines would be equally harassed and to win we would need to commit to a meat grinder where our infantry eventually attrits theirs. So it seems that, whether all nations have caught up technologically or not, the nature of warfare has changed, and changed in a way that is teaching the Russians a very hard lesson. I think you substantially underestimate our capabilities. Our Air Force has operated in non-permissive environments recently in Desert Storm, Iraq War, and Yugoslavia. The only reason we would operate the way you describe would be from weak politicians forcing that kind of ROE. I will acknowledge the Army's mobile ADA could be better, but it is improving. |
|
|
|
SC, USA
|
Posted: 3/2/2022 1:24:34 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Doritodust: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/470154/CAE69388-0BBB-466B-AA60-0C13F70106C2_jpe-2298670.JPG Anybody believe this? Posted by team osint telegram Add a zero on each figure, at least. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 3/2/2022 1:24:39 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Doritodust: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/470154/CAE69388-0BBB-466B-AA60-0C13F70106C2_jpe-2298670.JPG Anybody believe this? Posted by team osint telegram Hogwash. I’ve watched a bunch of videos and it’s at least ten times that from the visual evidence alone. At least 5,000 and probably closer to 10,000 dead. |
|
|
MI, USA
|
Posted: 3/2/2022 1:24:47 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryThat captured Russian gulping down tea and food like he's starving while Ukrainians basically comfort him and he weeps is a powerful scene. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2022 1:25:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Mal_means_bad]
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Intune69: Ukraine already owned them. They were just over there for a tire rotation and an oil change! "Please roll these across the border before you take off." "Okay, thanks for stopping the traffic!"    Attached File Attached File Planes Across The Border (1940) |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2022 1:25:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: SoCalExile]
[#25]
Translation from an earlier POW video:
Guy is doing a lot of these: https://twitter.com/mdmitri91/media  |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 3/2/2022 1:26:16 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Mal_means_bad: I'm amazed by these human chain videos, I expected ultra-violence from the Russians and they're being gentler than mall cops (most of the time). Not sure how much of this is ROE and strict orders and how much is a total lack of interest in fighting this war. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Mal_means_bad: The Russians there want no part of this shit. |
|
|
OR, USA
|
Posted: 3/2/2022 1:27:01 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Walleyeguy24: How many of those are likely air worthy? How many capable pilots do they have? How many maintenance people do they have? I'm pretty sure their logistics are fucked everywhere. I do agree to some extent that it is suprising we haven't seen more of their air assets in battle, but they also can't afford to use many of them either. In my eyes, they are built and trained to defend Russia from their home bases. They cannot project outside of their own areas with any type of efficiency. Based on what we are seeing with all of their other equipment, they can't keep all those assets flying at once. Limited maintenance, parts, missiles/bombs, fuel, air crews, storage, etc. They just can't do it in any real numbers without abandoning their current posts. And what percentage of the Russian military just didn't fall for the propaganda and are sitting this one out? Because if that idiot in the bunker hadn't caused this thousands of people wouldn't be dead and injured. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2022 1:27:14 PM EDT
[#28]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2022 1:27:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: CPT_CAVEMAN]
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Doritodust: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/470154/CAE69388-0BBB-466B-AA60-0C13F70106C2_jpe-2298670.JPG Anybody believe this? Posted by team osint telegram So if it's really 6k dead, then wounded would be like what, 18k? So 25k out of action. Then how many have deserted? Another 25k? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2022 1:28:15 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By martin248: Ok, that sounds plausible. If so, the reality is that with the backing of a real superpower (TBD Russia is still one) all you wrote would be true in ANY war for ANY invader. If next month the US invaded Eastern WTFistan, and China was feeding their defenders the best man portable anti air and anti tank missiles, we'd be in the same boat. We'd be unwilling to commit F35's except for very targeted missions, and it would leave our infantry and armor exposed to drone strikes, just like theirs. Out supply lines would be equally harassed and to win we would need to commit to a meat grinder where our infantry eventually attrits theirs. So it seems that, whether all nations have caught up technologically or not, the nature of warfare has changed, and changed in a way that is teaching the Russians a very hard lesson. Yes and no. It certainly has changed. But, the Russian command, control, intelligence, and COMMUNICATIONS seem to he as big of a driving factor as anything. These guys are out of fuel from the start, nobody knows where anyone else is and what to do. That is just as important. I doubt the IS or another well trained western ally would fair anywhere close to this poorly. But these drone strikes are absolutely a game changer, there is no doubt about it. If the US isn't working on small portable, disposable drones, we are not doing a good job or reading a modern battlefield. We also have no idea what counter drone technology is out there. GPS jamming along with other counter measures could make them useless. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2022 1:28:16 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Zhukov: https://i.imgflip.com/672fho.jpg 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2022 1:28:20 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By outofbattery: Do you even understand how proud I am that the Ukrainians had the first batch to help blunt the blow? I love my little land 🇪🇪 Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By outofbattery: Originally Posted By Birddog1911:
Do you even understand how proud I am that the Ukrainians had the first batch to help blunt the blow? I love my little land 🇪🇪 God Bless Estonia! I mean what balls. Hanging out there on the end of the NATO chain on the Russian border and they send their weapons which they need. |
|
|
|
SC, USA
|
Posted: 3/2/2022 1:28:26 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SheltiePimp: That's why I can't sleep. The logical outcome of this event comes down to very few scenarios. A) This is a planned and coordinated effort between Russia and the West, Ukraine is just being sacrificed in a pre-negotiated deal. - Highly Unlikely B) Russia thought this would be fast and easy, and over in a few weeks. - Possible, but highly unlikely because they knew of the training of Ukrainian forces and the weapons transfers, they knew Ukrainian special forces and regular forces have planned and prepared for this invasion. C) Russia is totally fucked up and their planning, logistics, and tactics, and these losses are just indicative of where they are as a military. - Possibly true, due to their fallback and leverage of nuclear deterrence, and they accept the losses as part of a long term strategy The problem with all these scenarios, is if Russia starts losing, and they are embarrassed in the eyes of the world, and they are economically destroyed, how do they retaliate? How does Putin save face? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SheltiePimp: Originally Posted By Bassgasm: The simple answer is most likely this: They can't. Even if your nation is an economic and industrial powerhouse with a bad ass military, dealing with the scenario the Ukrainians are bringing to the table would be very difficult and costly. A nation experiencing an economic collapse with a sketchy military and soldiers that don't have will to fight? Nope. That ain't gonna work. That's why I can't sleep. The logical outcome of this event comes down to very few scenarios. A) This is a planned and coordinated effort between Russia and the West, Ukraine is just being sacrificed in a pre-negotiated deal. - Highly Unlikely B) Russia thought this would be fast and easy, and over in a few weeks. - Possible, but highly unlikely because they knew of the training of Ukrainian forces and the weapons transfers, they knew Ukrainian special forces and regular forces have planned and prepared for this invasion. C) Russia is totally fucked up and their planning, logistics, and tactics, and these losses are just indicative of where they are as a military. - Possibly true, due to their fallback and leverage of nuclear deterrence, and they accept the losses as part of a long term strategy The problem with all these scenarios, is if Russia starts losing, and they are embarrassed in the eyes of the world, and they are economically destroyed, how do they retaliate? How does Putin save face? C. It's always C. Welcome to the quandary. We can't build the Golden Bridge for him to retreat. It's a problem. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2022 1:28:50 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By polishkebasa: +1 on the air part. Tanks are a tough one and the anti tank vs tank pendulum has swung back and forth a couple times in the last 70 years. There was a time that it was though heat would make heavy armor obsolete (of course not everyone subscribed to this idea) and here we are back to some tanks pushing 70 tons. Traditionally tanks have a shock and standoff value compared to infantry as well as being harder to displace by arty (although anti armor smart arty may have changed the equation). I would take note that alot of this Russian armor seems to be destroyed in a vulnerable state as in driving in a column on an open road where everyone can see you, so that may not be indecative of their performance in an assualt. It seems Russians also didn't learn their lesson from the past about driving tanks around enemy positions alone. I think there also some takeaway for legacy eastern armor design which prioritizes size over survivability, there is a thought that with how accurate everything is now these days having a smaller vehicle is not worth it at the expense of protection, ergonomics and safe ammo storage, some of the new wheeled ifvs are good example with some of them being bigger than an m1 is some dimensions Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By polishkebasa: Originally Posted By Bassgasm: Originally Posted By martin248: Originally Posted By Mad_Anthony: Originally Posted By martin248: Of course, but this is at some level a technical thread. What is the reason Russia hasn't used its air power? In theory it should have flown an overwhelming number of SU's over Ukraine after the initial cruise missile strike against airfields and AA, like every other invasion in recent times. But that didn't happen. They flew only limited sorties. That left the skies contested, and it's the reason those drones are still flying as well. They have suffered huge losses as a result and STILL no wave of SU's. They are all sitting on the ground in Russia. Why? Someone touched on this last week. I heard Russian pilots don't get many actual flight training hours, probably because the Russian gov can't afford to pay for the fuel, aircraft maintenance or pilot salaries. Then you have to consider all the air defence weapons that have been sent in to Ukraine; Russia can't afford to lose planes. Wasn't it Longshanks who said arrows cost money but the dead cost nothing? I think the question I have is, is this a failure of the Russian army, some gross incompetence? Or is this a technology change in the nature of warfare? If the Russian equipment just doesn't work, or the pilots are just incompetent, they should have known that when they did all those training exercises in the weeks leading up to the invasion. It's severe incompetence on many levels if they didn't know they weren't ready, or invaded even though they knew they weren't ready. Or it could be a change in the nature of war, in which case this war has two lessons: #1 Tanks are no longer relevant, and #2 Fighters are no longer relevant Because both can be destroyed be cheap man portable devices carried by infantry or by drones. Conducting military exercises is kind of like taking a test where you wrote the test, you take the test, and you grade yourself on the test. Whether or not the test has any value is determined on how you judge yourself. It's not hard to imagine Russia got that wrong. Fighters are still relevant. Taking down dated Su-27s and MiG-29s with poorly trained pilots is one thing. Taking down newer aircraft with good pilots and tactics is something else entirely. Also, MANPADs have a pretty limited altitude/range. They're great against helicopters and slower fixed wing aircraft operating close to the deck, but they're not useful against fast movers at higher altitude. Tanks are a tougher debate. They're still scary and deadly on the open battlefield, especially with good tactics and good logistics, but as it gets easier to kill them, the economics and logistics make less sense. +1 on the air part. Tanks are a tough one and the anti tank vs tank pendulum has swung back and forth a couple times in the last 70 years. There was a time that it was though heat would make heavy armor obsolete (of course not everyone subscribed to this idea) and here we are back to some tanks pushing 70 tons. Traditionally tanks have a shock and standoff value compared to infantry as well as being harder to displace by arty (although anti armor smart arty may have changed the equation). I would take note that alot of this Russian armor seems to be destroyed in a vulnerable state as in driving in a column on an open road where everyone can see you, so that may not be indecative of their performance in an assualt. It seems Russians also didn't learn their lesson from the past about driving tanks around enemy positions alone. I think there also some takeaway for legacy eastern armor design which prioritizes size over survivability, there is a thought that with how accurate everything is now these days having a smaller vehicle is not worth it at the expense of protection, ergonomics and safe ammo storage, some of the new wheeled ifvs are good example with some of them being bigger than an m1 is some dimensions That's the most important part to consider with what we are seeing now. The performance of crusty T-72s in the open with little to no support and no meaningful use of tactics is a poor reference for how relevant tanks are on the modern battlefield. M1A2s and newer tanks maneuvering with some combination of ISR, CAS, and infantry support is a whole different animal. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2022 1:29:57 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BerettaGuy: God Bless Estonia! I mean what balls. Hanging out there on the end of the NATO chain on the Russian border and they send their weapons which they need. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BerettaGuy: Originally Posted By outofbattery: Originally Posted By Birddog1911:
Do you even understand how proud I am that the Ukrainians had the first batch to help blunt the blow? I love my little land 🇪🇪 God Bless Estonia! I mean what balls. Hanging out there on the end of the NATO chain on the Russian border and they send their weapons which they need. A Russian tank destroyed in Ukraine is one that won't be rolling into Estonia. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2022 1:31:06 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RR_Broccoli: Why put an expensive jet in something you are going (to attempt) to destroy for practice? It's not a drone that picks targets, it's a drone that IS the target. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2022 1:31:29 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By M-1975: Translation from an earlier POW video:
Guy is doing a lot of these: https://twitter.com/mdmitri91/media https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FM2LZtdXsAEXXQC?format=png&name=small Powerful stuff, man |
|
|
|
SC, USA
|
Posted: 3/2/2022 1:33:27 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By M-1975: Translation from an earlier POW video:
Guy is doing a lot of these: https://twitter.com/mdmitri91/media https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FM2LZtdXsAEXXQC?format=png&name=small UKR are better souls than I would be in similar circumstances. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 3/2/2022 1:33:42 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By outofbattery: Do you even understand how proud I am that the Ukrainians had the first batch to help blunt the blow? I love my little land 🇪🇪 Hey, you guys get it. Stop Putin now in Ukraine or you’re next. If I were Estonia I would send everything - every Stinger, every Javelin, every Spike, every Gustav. Every AT weapon in Ukrainian hands means less of a chance you will have to use them yourselves. You can always rearm. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2022 1:34:49 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Storz: If I were some 20 year old conscript I'd be fucking elated to be captured |
|
|
|
WA, USA
|
Posted: 3/2/2022 1:35:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: martin248]
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Walleyeguy24: Yes and no. It certainly has changed. But, the Russian command, control, intelligence, and COMMUNICATIONS seem to he as big of a driving factor as anything. These guys are out of fuel from the start, nobody knows where anyone else is and what to do. That is just as important. I doubt the IS or another well trained western ally would fair anywhere close to this poorly. But these drone strikes are absolutely a game changer, there is no doubt about it. If the US isn't working on small portable, disposable drones, we are not doing a good job or reading a modern battlefield. We also have no idea what counter drone technology is out there. GPS jamming along with other counter measures could make them useless. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Walleyeguy24: Originally Posted By martin248: Ok, that sounds plausible. If so, the reality is that with the backing of a real superpower (TBD Russia is still one) all you wrote would be true in ANY war for ANY invader. If next month the US invaded Eastern WTFistan, and China was feeding their defenders the best man portable anti air and anti tank missiles, we'd be in the same boat. We'd be unwilling to commit F35's except for very targeted missions, and it would leave our infantry and armor exposed to drone strikes, just like theirs. Out supply lines would be equally harassed and to win we would need to commit to a meat grinder where our infantry eventually attrits theirs. So it seems that, whether all nations have caught up technologically or not, the nature of warfare has changed, and changed in a way that is teaching the Russians a very hard lesson. Yes and no. It certainly has changed. But, the Russian command, control, intelligence, and COMMUNICATIONS seem to he as big of a driving factor as anything. These guys are out of fuel from the start, nobody knows where anyone else is and what to do. That is just as important. I doubt the IS or another well trained western ally would fair anywhere close to this poorly. But these drone strikes are absolutely a game changer, there is no doubt about it. If the US isn't working on small portable, disposable drones, we are not doing a good job or reading a modern battlefield. We also have no idea what counter drone technology is out there. GPS jamming along with other counter measures could make them useless. Yeah, well that's where air superiority is supposed to come in. Once you control the skies your fighters shoot the drones down and your recon planes can maybe jam their transmissions as well. It becomes a close air support function to protect ground forces from drones. But the Russians aren't doing that and they are taking big losses on the ground as a result. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 3/2/2022 1:36:44 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Action45: That’s huge news if true. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Action45: Originally Posted By PurpleOtter: Current speculation:
That’s huge news if true. Don’t disagree at all with those. I’ll add some that other folks are considering: - What if Putin has other plans for them? (Another related action in an adjacent area like say Moldova and Romania and/or as a check on neighboring countries/NATO) - What if someone jammed Russian air defense systems? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2022 1:39:07 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tech-Com: I maybe got 30 more minutes of energy to keep covering. Trying to make it to nightfall.
It's okay to take a break or do updates every few hours if you need to. We appreciate the info you and others provide here. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2022 1:39:27 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BerettaGuy: God Bless Estonia! I mean what balls. Hanging out there on the end of the NATO chain on the Russian border and they send their weapons which they need. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BerettaGuy: Originally Posted By outofbattery: Originally Posted By Birddog1911:
Do you even understand how proud I am that the Ukrainians had the first batch to help blunt the blow? I love my little land 🇪🇪 God Bless Estonia! I mean what balls. Hanging out there on the end of the NATO chain on the Russian border and they send their weapons which they need. Ukrainians are fighting for a free,independent Europe against tyranny. They are fighting on behalf of us. History will remember those who stood by Ukraine’s side and curse those who tried to undermine her chance at freedom. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2022 1:39:43 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SheltiePimp: That's why I can't sleep. The logical outcome of this event comes down to very few scenarios. A) This is a planned and coordinated effort between Russia and the West, Ukraine is just being sacrificed in a pre-negotiated deal. - Highly Unlikely B) Russia thought this would be fast and easy, and over in a few weeks. - Possible, but highly unlikely because they knew of the training of Ukrainian forces and the weapons transfers, they knew Ukrainian special forces and regular forces have planned and prepared for this invasion. C) Russia is totally fucked up and their planning, logistics, and tactics, and these losses are just indicative of where they are as a military. - Possibly true, due to their fallback and leverage of nuclear deterrence, and they accept the losses as part of a long term strategy The problem with all these scenarios, is if Russia starts losing, and they are embarrassed in the eyes of the world, and they are economically destroyed, how do they retaliate? How does Putin save face? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2022 1:40:06 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By martin248: Yeah, well that's where air superiority is supposed to come in. Once you control the skies your fighters shoot the drones down and your recon planes can maybe jam their transmissions as well. It becomes a close air support function to protect ground forces from drones. But the Russians aren't doing that and they are taking big losses on the ground as a result. They can't risk their best jets for that. They lose a few more of their fighters, they themselves are going to get invaded by a troop of girl scouts. With degrades but capable air defense still up in Ukraine, Russia has already shown they have pretty much risked as much as they are willing to of their air assets. I'm sure we will see a few more when targets that are vital appear, but they have already obviously done that cost benefit analysis and are at the end of their risk table. |
|
|
|
JPN
|
Posted: 3/2/2022 1:40:54 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By atavistic: C. It's always C. Welcome to the quandary. We can't build the Golden Bridge for him to retreat. It's a problem. Highly probably, and no way out without an acceptance of our expected losses in a nuclear engagement, and trust in the success of our team's capabilities during and after the first battle. Very unsettling, I can't see a win-win scenario with nukes involved, and a revengeful Ukrainian population. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2022 1:41:28 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By martin248: Ok, that sounds plausible. If so, the reality is that with the backing of a real superpower (TBD Russia is still one) all you wrote would be true in ANY war for ANY invader. If next month the US invaded Eastern WTFistan, and China was feeding their defenders the best man portable anti air and anti tank missiles, we'd be in the same boat. We'd be unwilling to commit F35's except for very targeted missions, and it would leave our infantry and armor exposed to drone strikes, just like theirs. Our supply lines would be equally harassed and to win we would need to commit to a meat grinder where our infantry eventually attrits theirs. So it seems that, whether all nations have caught up technologically or not, the nature of warfare has changed, and changed in a way that is teaching the Russians a very hard lesson. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By martin248: Originally Posted By Lightning_P38: Originally Posted By martin248: I think the question I have is, is this a failure of the Russian army, some gross incompetence? Or is this a technology change in the nature of warfare? If the Russian equipment just doesn't work, or the pilots are just incompetent, they should have known that when they did all those training exercises in the weeks leading up to the invasion. It's severe incompetence on many levels if they didn't know they weren't ready, or invaded even though they knew they weren't ready. Or it could be a change in the nature of war, in which case this war has two lessons: #1 Tanks are no longer relevant, and #2 Fighters are no longer relevant Because both can be destroyed be cheap man portable devices carried by infantry or by drones. Could they mount a huge aerial blitz? Sure, but they would have to expect heavy losses to critical aircraft, even if the Ukrainians are only slightly effective. Same with the tanks, the Javelin and Blame missiles are effective, portable and plentiful. The Ukrainians drones are likely deployed more like US Army smaller drones, not Air Force drones. That is decentralized and very mobile. A few hundred feet of solid tarmac or corrugated steel is all the runway they need. Any back country road will do, they can be maintained in a large barn or garage. That makes them troublesome. Ok, that sounds plausible. If so, the reality is that with the backing of a real superpower (TBD Russia is still one) all you wrote would be true in ANY war for ANY invader. If next month the US invaded Eastern WTFistan, and China was feeding their defenders the best man portable anti air and anti tank missiles, we'd be in the same boat. We'd be unwilling to commit F35's except for very targeted missions, and it would leave our infantry and armor exposed to drone strikes, just like theirs. Our supply lines would be equally harassed and to win we would need to commit to a meat grinder where our infantry eventually attrits theirs. So it seems that, whether all nations have caught up technologically or not, the nature of warfare has changed, and changed in a way that is teaching the Russians a very hard lesson. That's not how that works. If Russia is losing fast movers to MANPADs, it's because they're flying in low to use unguided munitions. That's not how the US does business. The Ukrainians do still have larger SAM systems in play. Those are a much more viable threat to fighters and fast attack aircraft, but I'm pretty confident in thinking the US has better countermeasures, tactics, and weapons for dealing with that threat. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 3/2/2022 1:41:51 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By martin248: What you're describing is the way a tiny country would operate, where they might only have 20 fighters and they can't take risks. Instead Russia has about 300 SU's within reach of Ukraine and a lot more elsewhere, including a good number of latest generation fighters. SU-34's escorted by a large number of SU-30's and SU-35's should be able to destroy any air resistance fairly quickly given those numbers. But they didn't do that. UKR didn't shoot them down (only a couple), they remained grounded. So either they can't for logistics reasons, didn't for incompetence reasons, or won't because they know of a real military reasons not to do so. Also, is a SU-35 really that vulnerable to a stinger? Once the big launchers are knocked out how much of a threat is that to an advanced fighter at altitude? Honest question, as I have no idea. Anyway, launching a huge ground operation before achieving air superiority just seems ridiculous to me so I am trying to understand why they would do that. Almost like the Russian military is throwing the fight, maybe because they want Putin out? short-sighted to assume their intentions don't extend far beyond ukraine; they have their eyes set on bigger prizes less expendable hardware. currently kept home to protect against attacks on own soil, and preserved for if and when will be needed against NATO |
|
|
OR, USA
|
Posted: 3/2/2022 1:43:50 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SheltiePimp: Highly probably, and no way out without an acceptance of our expected losses in a nuclear engagement, and trust in the success of our team's capabilities during and after the first battle. Very unsettling, I can't see a win-win scenario with nukes involved, and a revengeful Ukrainian population. Right now the entire world is betting on the Russian military ignoring Putin's launch order. |
|
|
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.
